Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Purchase Tax

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now state, following the end of hire-purchase restrictions and the credit squeeze, what general principles guide him in the application of particular Purchase Tax rates to particular products; what regard is had to stimulating export trade, or social requirements, or helping particular areas affected, particularly by unemployment tendencies; to what extent his adjudication in these matters now rests upon revenue considerations; and, having regard to the rapid change in national economic circumstances during the last 12 months, whether he will reconsider and restate his principles with regard to Purchase Tax policy.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. F. J. Erroll): My right hon. Friend sees no need to reconsider the general principle which his predecessor explained to my hon. Friend on 10th December, 1957; namely, that in all decisions on the rates and incidence of Purchase Tax the interests of trade' and the consumer have to be balanced with the necessity to raise a given revenue.

Mr. Nabarro: Yes, but there is an interregnum between now and 7th April, and having regard to the fact that these matters have not been reconsidered since 10th December, 1957, which is 18 months ago, would not my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer be well advised to give further consideration to a restatement of all principles governing application of Purchase Tax rates, in his Budget statement, or shortly thereafter?

Mr. Erroll: The general principle was stated to my hon. Friend on 10th December, 1957, but that does not mean to say

there has been no further consideration of it, and, of course, we are not allowed to forget the subject, thanks to the number of Questions my hon. Friend puts down.

Mr. Nabarro: So far, 198.

Mr. Erroll: I am quite sure my hon. Friend would not expect me to give any indication of what might be in my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is not it high time that the interests of the consumer were placed first now, and is not it also time now that Purchase Tax, which still remains on household goods, should be withdrawn?

Mr. Erroll: That supplementary question, I am sorry to say, can draw from me only the usual answer that I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the diminution of revenue in a full year if razors, razor blades, razor strops, shaving soaps, shaving creams, and pre- and post-shaving lotions, now subject to Purchase Tax at 60 per cent. or 30 per cent., were made tax free.

Mr. Erroll: About £3½ million.

Mr. Nabarro: Has my hon. Friend in his researches, failed to observe that the Purchase Tax on razors and blades is still at the rate of 30 per cent. whereas Purchase Tax on cutlery is at the rate of only 15 per cent.? Why is it necessary to tax shaving twice as heavily as taxing the cutting of food? This is my 199th Purchase Tax Question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Erroll: Yes. Shaving requisites are taxed at 30 per cent. because they fall into the appropriate group. Cutlery is taxed at 15 per cent. for the same reason that that also falls into the appropriate group. I do not think there is any danger of cutlery being used in place of razors for cutting the bristle's off my hon. Friend's face. As this is my hon. Friend's 199th Question, I should like to wish him a merry Easter and a rest from his labours.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that after his 199th Question the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) knows no more and is no wiser than when he started?

Mr. Nabarro: My 200th is Question No. 75 on the Order Paper today.

Mr. Moss: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether, in view of the protection against head injury afforded to motorists who wear anti-shock felt caps or hats, he will modify Customs and Excise Notice No. 78, so that such caps and hats are ranked with safety helmets and released from Purchase Tax;
(2) why anti-shock felt caps or hats are distinguished from safety helmets in Customs and Excise Notice No. 78.

Mr. Erroll: These caps are clearly outside the present exemption, which is for helmets. I cannot comment at this time on the hon. Member's proposal that the law should be amended.

Mr. Moss: Is the Minister aware that it is not really a question of the tax itself, which is only 5 per cent., but the fact that motorists will be safe from injury to the head if these caps and hats are worn? The point, therefore, is that they should be treated on the same basis from that point of view as helmets. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Section 42 of the Road Traffic Act, 1956, defines helmets as any form of protective headdress? Will the hon. Gentleman please look into this matter, because this would be a great asset to road safety?

Mr. Erroll: I am aware of the inspiration which lies behind the hon. Gentleman's Questions and the sincerity of the points which he puts. I do not think that the very small imposition of tax is likely to be a deterrent to buying these felt caps or hats, which are quite different from helmets as defined in the Purchase Tax Schedule.

Income Tax (Schedule A)

Mr. Page: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what comparison he has made between the total annual sum estimated to be payable as rent in the United Kingdom and the combined total of the annual value of property, not owner-occupied, for the purpose of Schedule A tax and the amount of excess rents declared for tax purposes; and what steps he is taking to ensure that the requirements for disclosure of rents received in excess of annual value are brought to the notice of the general public.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): Figures are not available which would enable such a comparison to be made. As regards the second part of my hon. Friend's Question, the Income Tax return forms and the accompanying notes make it clear that excess rents must be returned, and inspectors of taxes make suitable inquiries where necessary.

Mr. Page: May I ask two supplementary questions on that? Is not it a fact that the collector of taxes has a fair certainty of collecting the owner-occupier into his net on notional income, whereas the person who is receiving cash income from excess rents so frequently escapes through the mesh, and is not it unfair to the owner-occupier? Secondly, is my hon. and learned Friend aware that, although I do not aspire to the heights of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) in the impressive quantity of Questions, I trust that the pertinent quality of my Questions over the past few months will get its reward on Tuesday week?

Mr. Simon: In regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I have no reason to think that any substantial amount of excess rents escapes taxation. In regard to the second part, I congratulate my hon. Friend.

Compensation for Loss of Office (Taxation)

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to ensure that in future payments of compensation for loss of office will be liable to taxation, bearing in mind that this has been recommended by the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income.

Mr. Simon: The hon. Member will not expect me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Mr. Cronin: In the course of deliberations between now and Budget day, will the hon. and learned Gentleman ask the Chancellor to bear in mind that it is now becoming a growing scandal that directors of large firms receive tax-free sums varying between £30,000 and £80,000 for loss of office, which is often quite voluntary, and that these sums are often merely a disguised form of private income? Would


it not be appropriate to stop this abuse at a time when large numbers of workers are being dismissed at a week's notice?

Mr. Simon: I will draw the hon. Member's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that we have had that Answer from him and his predecessor for four years, ever since the Royal Commission unanimously recommended that it should be dealt with in its Report of June, 1955? Is he aware that there is a strong feeling on both sides of the House about the fact that the recent court decision assessing liability in a case against British Railways, arising out of a very serious accident, provided that there should be a deduction for estimated Income Tax requirements? Is not it grossly unfair that in that case Income Tax is in effect deducted and in this case the sum is tax-free and represents several years, or indeed decades, of tax-free income?

Mr. Simon: My right hon. Friend is aware of the case in the House of Lords to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. As to my Answer, I have been saying it only during the pre-Budget period and the right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to say more than that today.

Entertainments Duty

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what amount the receipts from entertainments tax for 1958 exceeded or fell below his estimate for that period.

Mr. Erroll: Revenue estimates relate only to financial years and it is not the practice to revise Budget estimates during the course of the year.

Mr. Johnson: May I ask whether the figures of attendances at cinemas indicate that the revenue will have fallen very sharply? Bearing that in mind, and while not wishing the hon. Gentleman to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement, may I ask whether this is not a very powerful argument for abolishing Entertainments Duty on cinemas altogether?

Mr. Erroll: No, Sir. Attendance figures by themselves would not be a reliable indicator, because the prices of

admission are an important factor in estimating the yield of this tax.

Mrs Braddock: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the Walton Vale cinema, Liverpool, which closed on 31st January made a profit, during the year ended 1st November, 1958, of £194 and paid £1,801 in entertainments tax, whilst during the next three months it made a loss of £649 and paid £114 in tax, and that the Kensington cinema, Liverpool, which closed on 6th December, made a loss of £718 and paid £840 tax during the 50 weeks before that date; and what steps he will take to avoid similar closures and a resultant depression in the industry.

Mr. Erroll: My right hon. Friend is aware that these cinemas have closed but I cannot anticipate his Budget.

Mrs. Braddock: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these are only two examples of the many which could be given in relation to the losses of these cinemas? In view of the fact that the cinema industry is facing unfair competition and is in a very difficult position, will he consider abolishing Entertainments Duty altogether?

Mr. Erroll: I regret that I cannot say more to the hon. Lady than what is contained in my main Answer.

Post-war Credits

Mrs. McLaughlin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost of paying post-war credits to everyone holding less than £200 worth of these and being over 50 years of age.

Mr. Simon: A repayment that preserved the present differentiation between men and women and therefore included all women holders over the age of 45 would cost about £230 million.

Mrs. McLaughlin: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there is a growing body of opinion in the country that people over 50, particularly, ought to be paid at any rate a proportion of these post-war credits? Will he ask my right hon. Friend to bear that in mind when he is making his Budget for the coming year?

Mr. Simon: I will, of course, draw my right hon. Friend's attention to my hon. Friend's remarks.

European Free Trade Area and Common Market

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what progress has been made in discussions with other countries in the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation towards a compromise solution of the European Free Trade Area problem;
(2) whether, in view of the report just published by the European Economic Commission, it is Her Majesty's Government's intention to continue their endeavours to promote a Free Trade Area in association with the Common Market Community.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): Although the European Economic Commission's report has been published, it has not, I understand, been approved by the Six Governments and is to be the subject of further study. As I explained in the debate on 12th February, Her Majesty's Government still consider a European Free Trade Area to be the only fully satisfactory solution to European trade problems and they remain in constant touch with other members of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation with the object of facilitating negotiations as and when cirumstances permit.

Mr. Bellenger: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Six, especially France, are no longer interested in the original Free Trade Area proposals which the right hon. Gentleman assiduously pursued in his negotiations last year? Would he, therefore, take the initiative in trying to come to some compromise arrangements with the Six as soon as possible? If not, things will go from bad to worse.

Mr. Maudling: The negotiations were suspended in the latter part of last year because the prevous basis of negotiations, namely, unanimous determination to have a Free Trade Area, no longer existed and that position, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, is still very much the case. For the time being, we are rightly concentrating on short-term arrangements or a modus vivendi in negotiations with France.

Mr. H. Wilson: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what has transpired

in meetings held with those members of O.E.E.C. who are not members of the European Community, since it is understood that there was such a meeting in Scandinavia a few days ago?

Mr. Maudling: There have been several meetings of a confidential character, and I cannot disclose what took place. Broadly speaking, we have been very concerned to try to keep in constant touch with other European countries outside the Six in order to co-ordinate our views for our mutual benefit.

Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for two years we gave him a free hand? Does he appreciate that little came out of it and that the statement which he has recalled from the debate of 12th February is now six weeks old and was pretty well out-of-date even then? Is the right hon. Gentleman exclusively following the idea of a Free Trade Area or is he discussing with other European countries alternative arrangements?

Mr. Maudling: I made clear in the debate that we are considering all possible alternatives. We do not want to make suggestions at this time which are no good to us and will not produce a solution.

Retired Elderly People

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the plight of a large number of retired elderly people who are attempting to live on their life's savings; and if he will do everything in his power to ease their lot in forthcoming legislation.

Mr. Simon: Yes, Sir. The most effective way of helping these people is to stabilise the cost of living, and we have recently met with some success in this. As regards legislative action, I cannot, of course, anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Whilst thanking my hon. and learned Friend for that reply, and agreeing that the cost of living has been stabilised over a long period, may I ask whether he appreciates that this will not affect these people in any way? There will have to be a drastic fall in the cost of living before they are assisted appreciably. Does not my hon. and learned Friend realise that no tax


rebate will assist them, that some of them are too proud to take National Assistance, and some are on or just above Assistance level? Will he please see whether someone some day can do something to help these people who are in desperate straits?

Mr. Simon: I will certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to what my hon. and gallant Friend has said, but I would point out that in each of the last two Budgets fiscal means have been found to help the class of persons to whom he refers.

Mr. H. Wilson: Arising out of the original Answer, may I ask whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that the Treasury bulletin yesterday drew attention to the fact that the relative stability in the cost-of-living index over the last 12 months has occurred at a time of very remarkable reduction in import prices? Has the hon. and learned Gentleman any confidence that, if import prices turn up again, the Government's measures are likely to continue the stability of the cost-of-living index?

Mr. Simon: I ask the right hon. Gentleman to be good enough to await my right hon. Friend's review of the economic situation generally, when he opens his Budget statement.

Mr. Jay: Would not by far the best way of helping these people be by an increase in the retirement pension, and have not proposals to that effect just been voted down by the party opposite?

Mr. Simon: I ask the right hon. Gentleman to put that question to my hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Many of the people I have in mind do not receive pensions.

Income Tax (Married Women)

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, due to the aggregation of married couples income for tax and super-tax purposes, large numbers of highly-qualified women are deterred from following highly-skilled occupations for which they were trained; and if he will take action to remedy this situation for the benefit of the country.

Mr. Simon: My right hon. Friend has received representations of the nature outlined by my hon. and gallant Friend; but I cannot anticipate his Budget statement.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there are large numbers of able women in this country who are assisting it with their ability and brains and who pay super-tax on the very first penny they earn? Would he look at the remarks I made in last year's Budget debate and realise that on the next occasion I shall raise the matter rather more strongly than I did last year?

Mr. Simon: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for that warning and I will gladly prepare myself by reading what he said last year.

Widows (Pensions)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in preparing his Budget, he will bear in mind the needs of widows drawing 10s. a week pension whose pension has not been adjusted to meet the steadily rising cost of living.

Mr. Simon: My right hon. Friend will bear in mind the needs of all sections of the community, including those mentioned by the hon. Member.

Mrs. Castle: Yes, but will the hon. and learned Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend, when he is preparing to give away millions of pounds in his electioneering Budget—some of it to people who are already wealthy—to give priority to these widows, who may not have many votes but who have an unanswerable case because they are, I believe, the only pensioners who have had no increase in their pension to meet recent successive increases in the cost of living?

Mr. Simon: I will draw the hon. Lady's observation to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Wilson: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft), two Budgets and indeed two Chancellors ago, gave exactly the same answer as he has now given to my hon. Friend about bearing in mind the interests of all sections of the community,


but that the result of bearing them in mind was to concentrate his concessions exclusively on the Surtax payers?

Mr. Simon: This is really a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, but I think I am right in saying that successive Governments have felt that the 10s. widow, as she is called, is in a special class.

Banks (Forward Exchange Contracts)

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his recent decision to allow authorised banks to enter into forward exchange contracts with sterling area residents other than those concerned with visible trade.

Mr. Erroll: My right hon. Friend considers that there is no longer any justification for restricting the right of residents to contract forward for normal transactions if they wish.

Mr. Cronin: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this progressive dismantling of monetary controls may be comparatively innocuous while the £ is in a period of prosperity, but that it is likely to have a boomerang effect if the £ falls on hard times again?

Mr. Erroll: No, Sir, I do not think it will be, likely to make much difference in this case, because the volume of such transactions is very small in relation to the total of visible trade forward transactions which are at present covered.

Mr. Jay: If that is the case, why have the Government kept this in force for six years?

Mr. Erroll: First, because it was necessary to achieve stability and a strong £ abroad before we could proceed with the dismantling of this control, which we are now doing.

Mr. Jay: If these concessions are safe only when the £ is strong, does not that show, as my hon. Friend suggests, that they are likely to cause trouble when the £ is less strong?

Mr. Erroll: I do not think one could save a deterioration in the value of the £ by reintroducing a control as small as this one.

London Gold Market (Forward Transactions)

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his recent decision to allow the London Gold Market to undertake forward transactions in gold without obtaining approval from the Bank of England.

Mr. Erroll: Yes, Sir. Since 20th March there has been no need for authorised dealers to obtain the prior approval of the Bank of England for forward transactions in gold. This was a small relaxation which we were glad to make in the interests of the efficiency of the market.

Mr. Cronin: But is not it the case that approval has been refused in such cases comparatively recently, and therefore is not it likely that many cases of undesirable speculation will occur purely as a result of the blanket permission given by the Government?

Mr. Erroll: No, Sir, my right hon Friend does not take that view.

Oral Answers to Questions — UGANDA

Milk

Mrs. Butler: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what facilities are available in Uganda for the drying of milk and for the mixing of dried skim milk with groundnut flour to provide good protein supplement for children, as has recently been initiated in Nigeria under the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Julian Amery): No facilities exist in Uganda for drying milk and mixing it with groundnut flour, but these facilities may be developed commercially when the results of the West African project have been studied.

Mrs. Butler: Can the Minister say whether the Uganda Government have approached U.N.I.C.E.F. to supply processing plant for drying milk? If it could be achieved, this processed milk, mixed with groundnut flour, would be an extremely valuable protein supplement. Since there are large supplies of groundnuts in Uganda, this would seem to be a partial solution of the problem of malnutrition.

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir. Seventy tons are being imported from U.N.I.C.E.F. this year and the amount will increase to 600 tons by 1960.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Minister aware that there is a crying need for more milk powder to be imported into Uganda, and will he consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations with a view to using the milk service of New Zealand for this purpose? Seventy tons are far from sufficient for the needs of Uganda children.

Mr. Amery: I will look into the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. As I have said, 70 tons are being imported this year, rising to 600 tons in 1960.

Buganda (Constitutional Committee)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Buganda Ministers have now modified, or withdrawn, their objection to the Constitutional Committee appointed by the Governor; and if the Lukiko has now presented names for that Committee.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): No, Sir.

Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand from that Answer that in fact there has not been a withdrawal of the attitude of the Buganda people?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sorry to say that that is true.

Mr. Sorensen: What action is the Minister taking to try to encourage greater agreement on this point, and, in any case, if there is continued resistance on the part of the Buganda people, will the Constitutional Committee still continue?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: To quote my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, one cannot impose an opportunity, one can only offer it. The Buganda Government was invited to nominate representatives whose names might be approved by the Governor for inclusion in the Committee. It declined to do so, but the Committee will be visiting Buganda to take evidence and, nothwithstanding the refusal of the Buganda Ministers to recognise the Committee, they will be given every opportunity, if they so wish, to make their views known to the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Constitution

Mr. Foot: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a further statement regarding the proposal for a constitutional conference in Kenya.

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been drawn to Mr. Michael Blundell's statement on the desirability of a constitutional conference in Kenya; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I read with interest the view of Mr. Blundell, speaking on behalf of his Specially Elected colleagues, that at a later date, after the right atmosphere had been created, all groups might meet together for discussions on the constitution.
This view is broadly in harmony with my own, which my hon. Friend outlined on 5th February in reply to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) and my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall).

Mr. Foot: Would the right hon. Gentleman now agree that, if constitutional talks are to have any prospect of success, they cannot be limited to the ambit of the present constitution?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is rather difficult to deal with this matter by question and answer. There is to be a debate on Kenya today, when the question of the constitution will be traversed at some length.

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what preparations he intends making to meet the All-Party Elected Members' Delegation from the Kenya Legislative Council coming to London to discuss the matter of holding a round table conference regarding future constitutional advance in Kenya.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The delegation will not represent all groups or parties, but it will include members of all races.
I have informed the leader of the African Elected Members Organisation that I am afraid that my other heavy commitments will not allow me to see them on the date they have suggested,


but that I would be able to see them about the end of April.
I have, however, suggested that as Lord Perth expects to visit East Africa early in April the delegation might put their views to him for transmission to me.
I have added that if the delegation afterwards still wished to see me I would be very ready to welcome it at the end of April or thereabouts.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that the House will be happy that he appears to be happy about meeting the delegation? In the light of his helpful comments on Question No. 24, will the Minister, after meeting the delegation of all parties and creeds and colours, make a statement about the future constitutional advance in Kenya and about it becoming a democratic society at some time in the future?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am always ready, as the hon. Gentleman knows, to see as many people as possible, but I must again point out that this is not a delegation representing all groups or parties, though it includes members of all races. As I have said, I shall be ready to see the delegation. In regard to the second part of the supplementary question, I am always ready also to take any appropriate opportunity of making any comments which will help forward the constitutional harmony of Kenya.

Mr. Foot: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give the House an assurance that the views of the delegation will be considered before Her Majesty's Government or the Kenya Government commit themselves in any way on constitutional changes?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is rather a strange question coming from the hon. and learned Gentleman, as I am always being pressed to make statements about the future of Kenya. Whilst I am always ready to see people, I cannot undertake that because of future visits I shall refrain from making statements at appropriate moments, particularly when I know, as I often do, what are the views of prospective delegations. None the less, I will bear in mind what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said.

Printing Press, Nairobi (Licence)

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what conditions Dr. Kiano will have to fulfil to enable him to obtain a licence to use a printing press in Nairobi.

Mr. J. Amery: The conditions are contained in Section 5 (3) of the Printing Presses (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1952, a copy of which I am placing in the Library.

Mrs. White: What reason have the Government to suppose that Dr. Kiano would not fulfil those conditions, and on what ground has he been refused a licence for a printing press?

Mr. Amery: That is a matter for the Government of Kenya.

Hola Irrigation Scheme Camp, Kenya

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the deaths on 3rd March of the 11 detainees from the Hola Irrigation Scheme Camp, Kenya.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I regret to say that 11 detainees, who were members of a working party from Hola detention camp on 3rd March, have died at Hola. A full investigation was undertaken by the C.I.D., autopsies have been carried out on the bodies, and an inquest was opened at Mombasa by a senior resident magistrate on 18th March to determine causes of deaths. As the inquest is still being held I cannot anticipate the magistrate's findings of fact. The Kenya Government and the Attorney-General of Kenya will consider whether any further action is necessary in the light of the magistrate's findings.

Mrs. Castle: Is not it a fact that the Kenya police authorities have testified that the deaths of these 11 men were caused by violence? Is not it also a fact that local officials attempted to cover this up by saying that the men died from drinking poisoned water? Is not it also a fact that the camp commander, Mr. Sullivan, has revealed that there always has been a prison circular in existence from the Prison Department in Kenya authorising African warders to use physical violence to compel detainees to do forced labour? In view of this, is not it time to take the inquiries out of


the hands of the Kenya Government, and to establish an independent judicial inquiry sent from this country to inquire into the whole detention camp situation in Kenya?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I have said, this was a very distressing and grave case, the gravity of which neither I nor the Kenya Government would attempt to minimise. It is now the subject of an inquest, and it would be improper of me to attempt to anticipate the magistrate's findings, but I think that the Kenya Government have throughout taken prompt and proper action to deal with this matter. Any suggestion that they tried to cover it up is very untrue.

Mr. Callaghan: That being so, and while no one on either side of this House would begin to defend what has happened in this case, does not the Colonial Secretary realise that there is merit in my hon. Friend's suggestion, which has been made from this side of the House more than once, that the accumulation of these incidents points to the need for an independent commission of inquiry to find out what has been happening in these detention camps?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. I do not think that is so. I am very ready to debate the matter in the House when I am able to give the information after the magistrate has reported.

Mr. Tom Mboya

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proscribed and subversive documents were found in the Nairobi house of Mr. Tom Mboya, which was searched by the Kenya police on 6th March last.

Mr. J. Amery: None, Sir.

Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that six European police officers invaded Mr. Mboya's house at 4 o'clock in the morning on 6th March with a search warrant stating that information had been laid before a magistrate to the effect that such subversive documents were in his house? Does not the failure to find such documents show the unreliability of much of the information which has been brought before the Kenya Government and other colonial Governments, and is not this part of an attempt

to create an atmosphere hostile to the development of African political organisations in Kenya and to justify the arrest of many members of Mr. Mboya's party? Will the Government—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish the hon. Lady could put her supplementary question more shortly.

Mr. Amery: I entirely repudiate the suggestion that this was part of an attempt to stir up feeling against African political organisations. It was nothing of the kind. The hon. Lady must also realise that if police searches do not always succeed in obtaining the evidence for which they are looking, that is no reason for not conducting them.

Mr. Callaghan: What were the police looking for?

Mr. Amery: They were looking for documents which they had information had been deposited in Mr. Mboya's house.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA

Constitution

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the arrangements for further constitutional advance in Tanganyika and the interim Ministerial system.

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to make a statement on his plans for further constitutional advance in Tanganyika.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: On 17th March the Governor announced the terms of reference of a committee which will be set up under the chairmanship of Sir Richard Ramage to examine such matters as the number of elected members in the Legislative Council, the present voting system, qualifications for candidates and voters and the possibility of establishing a Territorial Council. He also announced the intention to invite five unofficials (three African, one Asian, one European) to take up Ministerial portfolios in the Government. These, with seven official Ministers, will comprise the Council of Ministers which will on 1st July take over the primary duties of the Executive Council.
The appointment of unofficial Ministers will mark yet another important step forward in Tanganyika's constitutional progress, since for the first time a substantial measure of responsibility for the formulation of policy will be placed on the shoulders of the representatives of the people of the territory.
I have placed copies of the Governor's speech in the Library. I am glad to say that the proposals have been accepted by the representative members of the Legislative Council.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Colonial Secretary aware that we are very happy indeed at the successful outcome of the elections in Tanganyika, at the dignified and responsible way in which Mr. Julius Nyerere has conducted himself during the period, and at the support which he has had from the members of various communities? Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Committee is expected to report on further constitutional advance, which appears to be taking place in Tanganyika in a proper atmosphere of non-racial democracy?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am afraid I cannot give the date when the Committee will finish its work, but I can say that what is happening in Tanganyika seems to be—I believe it is—an admirable illustration of what co-operation can achieve.

Sisal industry (Inquiry)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Governor of Tanganyika has directed that the inquiry into the state of industrial relations in the sisal industry shall not be held in public.

Mr. J. Amery: Both sides of the industry agreed with the Government that it would be better for the inquiry to be held in private.

Mr. Swingler: When the right hon. Gentleman says "both sides of the industry", does he mean that the trade unions, which are represented by a very small minority on the Wage Fixing Council, have agreed to this procedure? Is he not aware that there have been statements from the trade unions, which have an important part to play in this inquiry, that they wish to have the opportunity to state their case in public so that the

people of the area may judge what the causes of the dispute are?

Mr. Amery: My understanding is that the parties concerned have all agreed that the inquiry should be in private.

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND

Disturbances (Casualties)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of Europeans and Africans, respectively, killed during the recent disturbances in Nyasaland.

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Europeans and Africans, respectively, have now been killed in Nyasaland in this year's disturbances; and how many of them were women.

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Europeans, Asians and Africans, respectively, have been killed in Nyasaland since the state of emergency was declared.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Since the reply I gave to the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) on 19th March the Governor has reported that a further two Africans have been killed, which brings the total of Africans killed since the emergency, I am sorry to say, to 52, including one woman. There have been no fatal European or Asian casualties.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is not it rather extraordinary that the figures show that not a European has been killed in Nyasaland although the Colonial Secretary indicated in his statement to the House that there was a massacre plot to eliminate all Europeans in that country? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the Commission of Inquiry which he is sending to Nyasaland will have an opportunity to investigate the circumstances in which the killings of Africans took place, and in particular the circumstances surrounding the killing of the woman?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The terms of reference, which I clearly announced to the House, refer to the disturbances and the events leading up to them. I have nothing to add to them, but I should have thought


that hon. Members could read into them a clear indication of the scope of the inquiry.

Mr. Callaghan: While we are all ready to leave it to the Commission of Inquiry, does not the Colonial Secretary think it rather remarkable, in view of what has been said, that although there are scores, if not hundreds, of Europeans living in isolated communities throughout the length and breadth of Nyasaland, as far as we know very few of them, if any, have been attacked, although I think one or two have been stoned, and there have certainly been no attempts at massacre?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Nobody would wish to make the work of the inquiry more difficult, and I have no desire to do so, but I must point out that it is the Government's view and the Governor's view that action was taken in time to stop the tragedy that might well have ensued.

Mr. Brockway: As there are only 8,000 Europeans in the population of nearly 3 million in Nyasaland, does the right hon. Gentleman really ask the House to believe that if a massacre had been planned that small number of Europeans among the large African population would not have suffered to a greater degree than they have during recent days?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sure the whole House will rejoice—it certainly should rejoice—that no Europeans or Asians have been killed, while we all deplore the loss of African life. I have nothing to add to what I said before, and that is that it was by nipping it in the bud that the trouble was averted.

Mr. Stonehouse: Will people who have complaints to make against the security forces in connection with the shooting of the 52 Africans have the right to be heard by the Commission of Inquiry?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Something must, after all, be left to the Commission of Inquiry. I hope, as I have said, to make a statement today if I possibly can or, failing that, to issue a statement as soon as possible dealing with certain aspects of the Commission's work. Obviously, I cannot do the work of the Commission for it, and a great deal must be left to the Commission itself to settle. I cannot undertake to make a statement today, and

I would not want to mislead the House. I am making every effort to make a statement, but it was said yesterday that if that is not possible the House as a whole would understand.

Mr. Callaghan: Will the Colonial Secretary accept the assurance that we know he will try to make a statement as he has promised to do so? None of us on this side of the House wants to make the work of the Commission more difficult, but the right hon. Gentleman will realise that there is to some extent a test of credibility in what the House and the country have so far been told about the massacre.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly, Sir. I agree.

Church of Scotland Mission, Blantyre

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement about the complaints of police action against Africans connected with the Church of Scotland Mission, Blantyre, Nyasaland.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 10th March to the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and other hon. Members, to whicth at the moment I have nothing to add. I hope the hon. Member will put the Question down again for early answer after the Easter Recess.

Mr. Thomson: Why should there be this long delay? Is the Secretary of State aware that, since he made the statement, the well-respected missionary on the spot, the Reverend Andrew Doig, has made a detailed statement reported in the Scotsman on 14th March of what took place, saying that the boys were walking normally from their classrooms to their dormitories and that the police attacked the boys and not the boys the police? Is not it clear that the authorities are delaying the matter in order to cover up admitting a tragic blunder?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, it is quite the reverse. I am exceedingly anxious that this statement should be fair to all concerned, and so I am having rechecks made. It might take a form rather surprising to the hon. Member.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what representations he has received to date from Nyasaland or from this country in respect of incidents at the Blantyre Mission; and if he will state the result of his examination of the conflicting evidence in his possession.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have received several letters which have included references to the incidents at the Blantyre Mission on 23rd February. No representations have reached me from Nyasaland.
As regards the second part of the Question, I hope the hon. Member will put the Question down again for early answer after the Easter Recess.

Mr. Sorensen: While, of course, appreciating the reply to the latter part of the Question, which is the same as that given in the reply to a previous Question, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has received any representations from ecclesiastical bodies in this country and Scotland?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have had a very great number of communications on this matter of varying kinds and of different views.

Journalists

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking to ensure freedom of newspapermen reporting the emergency in Nyasaland from threats of violence by the special police being employed in the Protectorate.

Mr. J. Amery: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member on 12th March, 1959.

Mr. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been allegations of violence against journalists and allegations of unnecessary restrictions on their movements? Is he aware that the whole world is watching what we are doing in Nyasaland and that it is tremendously important for our own good name that journalists reporting the incidents there should have the fullest possible freedom to see what is being done?

Mr. Amery: We are naturally anxious hat there should be good and objective reporting on what is going on. During

the first 48 hours of the emergency, as the hon. Member will understand, the organisation and arrangements for looking after the Press had not been very highly developed. Having been a newspaperman myself in circumstances of that kind, I know how difficult it can sometimes be.

Mr. Callaghan: Is it now possible for newspapermen to travel throughout the length and breadth of Nyasaland and get to the Northern Provinces and up to Nkata Bay?

Mr. Amery: I should want notice of that.

Legislative Council (Governor's Statement)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the recent statement of Sir Robert Armitage, the Governor of Nyasaland, that Africans must have an elected majority in the Legislative Council of the territory, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the relevant passage from a statement which the Governor made on 7th March in answer to a question from a reporter and which is not reflected with complete accuracy in the hon. Member's Question.
There is nothing in this statement which is out of harmony with my own line of thought but the hon. Member will understand that the recent disturbances have made it for the time being impossible to take the final steps in determining the exact nature of the next stage in Nyasaland constitutional advance.

Mr. Johnson: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this statement is on similar lines to that made by the Governor of Tanganyika? In view of the way Tanganyika is making its constitutional change, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that Nyasaland, a similar Colony, could follow in a similar way and look forward to a constitution with an African elected majority?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am certainly not saying that it is impossible—far from it. But I suggest that the hon. Member


should read the Governor's statement, which he does not appear as yet to have fully read.

Following is the statement:
It is our intention to proceed with the preparation of constitutional reforms as soon as the situation becomes normal. I am naturally anxious that we should be able so to proceed as quickly as possible. It has long been our intention to ensure considerable African political advancement by way of increased representation elected on a broad franchise in the Legislature, also African membership of the Executive Council. The African Congress was not prepared to accept changes other than virtual independence under an African government immediately. Of the various communities which I have consulted, each has a different conception of the constitutional changes required. In our discussions we were reaching the final stages in the formulation of proposals when Lord Perth's visit was inevitably postponed. Obviously I cannot give any precise details regarding the form that changes may take when any official views on the subject may still be changed as a result of consultation with the various communities and Her Majesty's Government. There does appear to be, however, a very large measure of agreement that the changes must provide for an effective and stable government. They must embody in them a framework which will ensure that there will be steady progress to conditions under which the African voter will have the major say in electing the government.

Education

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to ensure continuity of educational work in Nyasaland during the state of emergency.

Mr. Amery: The restoration of law and order is a necessary pre-requisite for the full resumption of normal education, but I am sure that the Governor is taking all practicable steps to ensure that it is being carried on to the greatest extent possible in present circumstances.

Mr. Thomson: Is the Minister aware that three graduates, who were teachers in the Church of Scotland service in Blantyre, are amongst those arrested, and that many other teachers have been arrested, although they were known to be moderating influences in African nationalist politics? Will the Minister try to ensure that educational work, which is so important for the long-term future of Nyasaland, is restored to normal as quickly as possible?

Mr. Amery: According to my information, only one African woman teacher has been detained.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA

Elections

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Elections in Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Out of a total of 30 seats, 22 fell to be filled by elections. Two candidates were returned unopposed. 18 seats were contested. There were no nominations for two seats; the by-elections will be held on 9th April.
The state of the parties is:

United Federal Party—13 seats.
Central African Party—3 seats.
African National Congress—1 seat.
Dominion Party—1 seat.
Independents—2 seats.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reason why two seats were not contested was the ridiculous provision that candidates had to have two-thirds of the Chiefs supporting their candidature and that this was impossible to achieve at a time when rains made transport conditions impossible? Will he give an undertaking that he will not allow the Governor to give in to the pressure from Sir Roy Welensky's party with regard to the appointment of the Ministers and that the Governor will retain responsibility for that?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Governor is sending me a full report about the elections, and it will include, in particular, a report on the provision for the Chiefs' veto. Four of the six candidates in four of the six constituencies succeeded in obtaining the required certificates, and three candidates have done so for each of the two by-elections. With regard to the second part of the supplementary question, the Governor's powers remain as I defined them when I told the House about the new constitution, and he will exercise them in the proper way.

Mr. J. Johnson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who the two African Ministers will be? Failing their names, can he confirm whether they will be members of Sir Roy Welensky's party, the U.F.P.? If so, it will mean that they have been elected mainly by European votes and will be speaking in the Chamber not on behalf of the people who sent them there. Indeed, they will be opposed by the Africans.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The last supplementary question from the Opposition benches asked me to ensure that the Governor made up his own mind. I am now being asked to make it up for him. He will make up his own mind.

Mr. Johnson: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how the two Ministers will be chosen? If they are nominated by the U.F.P., obviously the Governor will then accept the decision of the leader of the majority party.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Governor has made no statement yet, and I am not going to anticipate his statement. He will follow precisely the constitutional arrangements arrived at and clearly laid down, which were described to the House at the time.

Incident, Gwembe (Tribal Compensation)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the recommendation of the Griffin Commission on the deaths and injuries caused by firearms in the Gwembe district of Northern Rhodesia, contained in Section 25 (2) of its report, concerning the early payment of tribal compensation, has yet been carried out.

Mr. J. Amery: No, Sir. It is at present under discussion between the Territorial and Federal Governments.

Mr. Rankin: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that it is three years since we settled the question of individual compensation at £300,000, and that only £60,000 has been paid out so far? Why should there be such delay in settling the problem of tribal compensation, especially as the British Government are guaranteeing the loans paid to the Federal Power Board for carrying out the Kariba scheme?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that, while compensation for immediate loss and inconvenience can and is being paid out, tribal compensation looks to the future and is being applied to development schemes, and those naturally take some time to work out.

Mr. Rankin: Is it possible to indicate to the Africans some date at which they might expect the matter to be settled?

Mr. Amery: It must await the conclusion of the discussions between the Governments concerned.

Lake Kariba (Northern Shore)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many applications for sites to build clubs and hotels on the northern shore of Lake Kariba have been received by the Lake Kariba Coordinating Committee.

Mr. J. Amery: Applications have been received for one club site and four hotel sites.

Mr. Rankin: Will the hon. Gentleman keep in mind that this huge inland lake will be the scene of great commercial and social activity in Central Africa and that in many ways we are starting ab initio? Will he use all his influence to see, as far as he can, that the colour bar is abandoned?

Mr. Amery: We shall do everything we can, both there and throughout the area, to diminish colour bars, in so far as they still exist.

Zambia African National Congress

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has considered the constitutional proposals submitted by the Zambia African National Congress of Northern Rhodesia; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Before the Zambia African National Congress was declared an unlawful association t had received through the Governor from the then President a letter containing proposals for a new constitution.
There is no question at present of revising the existing constitution which came into force only on 24th January.

Mr. Swingler: Whatever one's views of the policies or tactics of the Zambia Congress, does not the Congress have considerable support among Africans? Did not it do the proper thing in submitting the constitutional proposals for change through the right channel, unfortunately being met with repressive measures on account of allegations about which there are very grave doubts? Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the repressive measures taken against the


Zambia Congress and at any rate give a reasonable and considered reply to the proposals put forward?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly not. There is every evidence from Northern Rhodesia that the declaration of this organisation as an illegal organisation has been hailed with great delight and relief by the mass of Africans.

Mr. Swingler: Is this evidence any stronger than that produced in the White Paper about the massacre plot?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The evidence is overwhelming. I ask the hon. Member to keep in touch with opinion in Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. Swingler: May we have a White Paper on that?

Oral Answers to Questions — BAHAMAS

Constitution

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement regarding future constitutional advance for the Bahamas.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I assume that the hon. Member refers to the constitutional changes proposed in the statement made in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) at the conclusion of my visit to the Bahamas last April. I made a further statement, published in the Bahamas last month, in amplification of certain points.
The Bill embodying these changes is now before the local Legislature. In the circumstances, I should prefer not to make any more detailed statement just at the moment.

Mr. Johnson: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that all the informed opinion which comes out of the islands would say that the present constitution is intolerable and that for the sake of future harmony it needs to be very much liberalised to get the consent and support of the mass of the people in the Bahamas?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Naturally, I follow very closely what is happening, and I am anxious and determined that the arrangements arrived at should reflect the spirit and the letter of what was agreed when I was in the Bahamas.

Mrs. White: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the necessity for an independent commission to arrange the boundaries of any new constituencies so that they will not be subject to political pressure?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is very important indeed. I quite agree.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH BORNEO, SARAWAK AND BRUNEI

Educational and Hospital Services

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many hospital beds and school places are available in British North Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei, respectively; and what is the expenditure per head for these services in each of these territories.

Mr. Amery: I have asked the Governors and High Commissioner for the information and will write to the hon. Member when I have it.

Mr. Sorensen: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is anything being done to try to co-ordinate the educational and hospital services of these three territories?

Mr. Amery: That raises a rather different issue, but I will look into that, too.

BERLIN

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister following his conversations with President Eisenhower, to what extent it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to support the stationing of a United Nations force of observers in East and West Berlin.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I have nothing to add to what I said to the right hon. and learned Gentleman yesterday.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the persistent reports that the proposal associated with the United Nations for the solution of the Berlin problem is likely to be dropped, may we have an assurance from the Prime Minister that this proposal will be included in the discussions that are to take place in Washington next week?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I would rather not go into the details of what we are to discuss with our Allies.

SOUTHERN ASIA (ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE)

Mr. Healey: asked the Prime Minister what agreements he reached with the President of the United States of America concerning economic assistance to the countries of Southern Asia.

The Prime Minister: We had some discussion about the importance of economic assistance to under-developed countries, but no specific agreements were considered.

Mr. Healey: Does not the Prime Minister agree that the rapid economic development of Southern Asia, and particularly India, is as important to the West as a solution to the grave problems of Central Europe, and can he assure the House that the Government will give every encouragement and support to the proposals now under consideration by the American Administration and Congress?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will realise, my time was limited, and the points discussed centred round certain urgent questions. He will also note that Her Majesty's Government have long shown the importance which they attach to the extension of economic assistance to Southern Asia, either in connection with the Colombo Plan or otherwise. The United States has also contributed on a great scale in Southern Asia for a considerable number of years. All these matters are very much in our minds.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will not the Prime Minister consider my hon. Friend's suggestion, as this is a very urgent matter and of great importance to the West? Will he further consider that the aid given through United Nations machinery is more welcomed by these countries, and will not the Government do something to increase the resources placed at the disposal of the United Nations?

The Prime Minister: That is a particular method. I fully agree about the importance of this, but I think the right

hon. Gentleman will also agree about the very great contribution made both by this country in relation to our resources and by the United States. Any question of the precise machinery for any new effort is another matter.

SUMMIT CONFERENCE

Mr. Healey: asked the Prime Minister whether he will propose that the Summit Conference should study the possibility of limiting and controlling the supply of arms to the Middle East.

The Prime Minister: Until the nature and scope of any possible Summit Conference is known it would be unwise to speculate about its agenda. Such matters would in any case have to be settled by discussion with our Allies and the Soviet Government.

Mr. Healey: Cannot the Prime Minister apply the insight which he so recently acquired into possible solutions of the European problem to the very similar problems of the Middle East? Would not he agree that the dangerous absurdity of current policy is well illustrated by the fact that at present one Arab State is threatening to use weapons supplied by Britain to fight for Communism against another Arab State which has been armed by Russia?

The Prime Minister: All these are very grave questions. I was answering a Question whether I would say what would be the agenda for the Summit Conference, and I am afraid that I am not in a position to do so.

Mr. Gaitskell: Did the Prime Minister discuss the Middle East in his talks with Mr. Khrushchev?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will my right hon. Friend repudiate the attempt by the Opposition to widen the terms of reference of the forthcoming summit talks, which would make it less likely than ever that any satisfactory agreement will be reached?

The Prime Minister: I think it is a good thing to try to do one thing at a time.

STRONTIUM 90

Mr. Grimond: asked the Prime Minister what the latest information about the fall of strontium 90 shows; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the recent evidence adduced by Government authorities in the United States of America that the rate of fall-out of strontium 90 and other radioactive products of nuclear weapon tests is much higher than previously estimated, he will request the Medical Research Council to make a revised report on the resultant hazards to human life.

The Prime Minister: The United States Government Report, to which I presume, these Questions refer, is not yet available in this country. We are obtaining copies urgently, but until these have been obtained, I cannot make any statement about this matter.

Mr. Grimond: While appreciating that the Prime Minister has not yet studied this report, may I ask him whether this also was a subject which was under discussion in Russia and America during his recent visits; and, if not, will he say how the whole question of the limitation of tests and the exchange of information is to be handled now that, unfortunately, the Geneva Conference seems to be breaking

up? Is he aware that it appears that the information that we have grossly underestimates the danger?

The Prime Minister: Of course, we will study the new technical information, and I shall await the advice of my own technical experts in assessing it. With regard to the Geneva Conference, it is on holiday until 13th April.

Mr. Warbey: Is not it clear from the reports available in the Press that each successive re-assessment of the extent and effect of nuclear fall-out reveals a worsening of the prospect for human life? Will he therefore undertake, since some Governments seem to be reluctant to disclose information on these matters until it is forced out of them, that as far as this country is concerned, we shall have very quickly an up-to-date and realistic assessment of the danger to human life in this country?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid I cannot accept the innuendo in the hon. Gentleman's statement. We have made information available all the time as it is given to us by our advisers.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heath.]

SUPPLY OF BRITISH BOOKS AND FILMS OVERSEAS

12 noon.

Mrs. Eirene White: The subject that I wish to raise this morning concerns the supply of British books, films and other information material to overseas countries. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has recently issued a White Paper on the subject of British Overseas Information Services, and I hope that at a later date the House will have an opportunity of discussing all the extremely important matters contained in that White Paper. But an Adjournment debate of this brevity is not an occasion for going into the whole question of Overseas Information Services, and I therefore propose to confine myself to certain aspects of the matter, more particularly the supply of British books.
For quite a long time past this has been a subject of great concern both to the book trade in this country and to members of the public and Members of the House who are interested in these matters. If we may take The Times as a barometer of public interest, we find that nearly two years ago it published a considerable correspondence on this matter, and we have had a number of letters during the past four or five months urging that much more effective action should be taken. Further, we had a notable speech by Lord Chandos, at the beginning of October, when he addressed the Publishers' Association, and we had a statement by the right hon. Gentleman himself at the beginning of November.
I am well aware that the Chancellor of the Duchy has been doing a great deal of work personally on this matter. I believe that he has a working party—an honourable designation inherited from our Administration—and I hope that that working party is nearing the conclusion of its labours. In this subject, time is of the essence of the matter. The mills of God do not grind more slowly than Departmental committees. We are anxious that we shall have from the right hon. Gentleman, today if possible, some indication of when he thinks that positive action is likely to ensue.
Paragraphs 2 and 13 of the White Paper which the right hon. Gentleman

has just issued refer to books and it will be noted that although action is being taken immediately to increase the facilities of the British Council, which is a most welcome step, the Government have not yet found a method of dealing with the very much larger and exceedingly important question of the commercial sale of books in a number of countries in which we are finding it extremely difficult to sell any books at all, or are able to sell them only in very restricted numbers.
The problem has to be divided into several parts. A separate problem, with which I do not intend to deal this morning, and which I mention only in passing because I have had some correspondence about it. concerns books, printed in English, in Czechoslovakia and other places, which are brought to this country. The trade feels that it has a grievance in this matter, but that is a question concerning the dumping regulations and the Board of Trade rather than for the right hon. Member. As I say, I mention it only out of courtesy to those who have corresponded with me about it. I do not propose to follow the matter further, nor to say very much about the Information Service aspect, which is primarily of interest to the British Council.
I would, however, like to pay a very warm tribute to the British Council for the work it does. I only wish that Lord Beaverbrook would pay some attention to the details of what it does, instead of attacking it in and out of season. If we look into the record of the British Council, not merely in book supplies to its libraries and reading rooms, but also in relation to the action it takes to ensure that people overseas, in Commonwealth and other countries, shall have information about the books which are published, we cannot but be extremely grateful to it. I need hardly say that its "British Book News" which gives a book selection guide, and reviews about 200 titles each month, is of inestimable value to librarians all over the world.
It has other periodicals ranging from English language teaching to a British medical bulletin, and so on, which help specialists in different fields to keep up to date. We are, therefore, delighted to know that further funds are to be made available to the Council to increase its work in this direction. My only reason


for not wishing to pursue the matter further is that, as far as I can judge, the steps already announced in the White Paper are reasonably satisfactory at the moment.
I therefore turn to the really difficult aspects of the problem. There are two quite separate ones, but it may be necessary to solve both if British books and other cultural material are to be supplied in adequate quantities to many countries overseas. There is one group of countries whose people wish to buy our books and are not themselves without means to do so, but which are quite unable to permit them to use sterling for this purpose owing to balance of payments difficulties. I have a long list of countries—with which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is only too familiar—in which we are unable to sell books, in part at least because of currency difficulties.
During the war, and for a few years afterwards, we had a scheme known as the British Book Export Scheme. Sir Stanley Unwin, the doyen of British publishers, was responsible for working out the details of that scheme initially and, as I understand, it worked very satisfactorily. Unfortunately, it was allowed to lapse a few years ago and has not been revived. In the meantime, however, the United States Government, seeing how successful our scheme had been, copied and extended it, and they now have in operation their Information Media Guarantee Scheme, which provides currency not only for books but for periodicals, films and other miscellaneous cultural material, including maps, picture reproductions, and so on. This I.M.G. scheme has grown to quite stupendous proportions in the last few years. I understand that roughly two-thirds of the amount is allocated to books; about 20 per cent, to periodicals; 15 per cent. to films, and about 5 per cent. to other miscellaneous materials.
The scheme works in this way. The currency of the country which cannot afford dollars is blocked. In a few instances it can be used to meet the costs of embassy and similar United States services in that country. For the most part, I understand, it is either genuine blocked currency, in other words not spent at all, or else used on projects agreed by the respective Governments to be expenditure not otherwise likely to

be undertaken by the American Government. That has meant that in a number of countries the United States have used this blocked currency to provide amenities of one sort or another which, presumably, bring credit to them in that country, so that they not only sell their books but bestow other benefits as well. They are, in fact, making the best of both worlds.
This is happening, for example, in Pakistan which, I think, is one of the crucial countries in this respect. I understand that the American sale of books has increased tenfold in Pakistan in the years since the scheme started. Turkey is another country in which similar work is being done, and also in Israel and a number of other countries, where the Americans, by this method copied from us, are making tremendous headway whereas the British book trade is finding it exceedingly difficult, almost impossible, to sell books in any quantity at all.
I urge the Government to tell us—I hope today—what they intend to do to meet this position. This is not, I think, an insoluble problem. We have, in fact, done it before with considerable success, up to about 1952, I think, and in Yugoslavia it went on for several years longer. Therefore, there is nothing new in this. We have had experience of its administration, so that there is nothing to be frightened of. It is simply a matter of deciding how far we are prepared to meet the financial arrangements.
It is most lamentable that we should have had this gap of several years when it is perfectly clear that we have been steadily losing ground in a number of countries where the trade in British books has been shrinking. I do not want to weary the House with a whole list of countries, but in a number of other places, where conditions of this kind are not so acute as in Pakistan, Turkey and Israel, conditions are, nevertheless, difficult. Spain, Indonesia and Poland are among the countries which have been mentioned to me. There are some Latin American countries as well as other countries formerly in the Commonwealth, Burma, the Sudan and also Ceylon, where there may be some difficulties but where the conditions are not so acute as in other places like, for example, Vietnam.
I could give further details of what has been happening, but I will mention


Israel, a country which has had a long tradition of association with the United Kingdom and whose scholars would be only too happy to be able to get supplies of books printed and published in this country. Incidentally, the sale of our books in Israel is worth at most about £25,000 a year, whereas the United States is selling books to the value of about £500,000 a year. This is something which is really of the utmost importance.
The cash value of books as part of our national export trade is not, of course, as great as all that, and I will not pretend that it is. But it takes very little imagination or intelligence to see that if one sells books one will not only build up good relations between the respective countries and people, but, as Sir Stanley Unwin has always said, if I may quote him once again, "trade follows the book." It is quite clear that if textbooks, medical books, and so on, emanate from one country rather than from another, it is very likely that the engineers and the other technicians of that country will turn to the country from which the textbooks have come for plant, machinery, and so on, and similarly for medical supplies and other things.
I do not think that one need elaborate on that, but I passionately urge the Government to take action in this matter of currency difficulties. We have done it before, and I do not believe that there is any insuperable problem. We simply need the will to act.
I now turn to another matter which, I confess, I think is somewhat more complex because, apart from the American I.M.G. scheme and similar schemes, there is the other matter of books supplied to various countries where the difficulty is not that the country has a balance of payments problem but where the individual students and readers are themselves people with low incomes who find it difficult to pay high prices for our books. They are only too happy to buy the hundreds of thousands of very cheaply printed books which are being sent into those countries primarily by the United States, Russia and China, and to some extent, apparently, from other Iron Curtain countries, of which Czechoslovakia seems to be the principal one.
We know that in the United States the books are subsidised directly by the Government, and we assume that they are similarly subsidised in the Iron Curtain countries, by the Foreign Languages Publishing House, in Moscow, and by the equivalent organisation in China. I have complete details of the United States low cost book scheme which makes it quite plain that the American Government pay the publisher his out of pocket costs, including something for overheads and for manufacturing and royalties. The Government also agree to buy back any unsold copies, so that it is really on a sale or return basis.
The books are specially printed, generally on less good quality paper with poor bindings, and so on. They are often printed from the plates used for the ordinary editions in the United States. I understand that about 25 titles a year are being given this special concession by the United States, with about another 25 specially written "easy reading books," as they are called. The arrangements are made in such a way that the United States publisher is completely safeguarded. So also is the retailer in the country where the books are sold, usually through ordinary bookshops. The whole difference is made up by the United States Government. I presume that something similar must happen regarding the Russian and Chinese books.
The difference in the price of these books is really quite stupendous. One of our ordinary well-known cheap editions printed in this country would in India or Burma probably cost about 4s. or 4s. 6d. I am told that one can get the Russian equivalent of the same book for about 8d. or 10d., so that the inducement to buy the Russian book is clearly colossal. It is not only humiliating for us to see our classics, of which, needless to say, Dickens is one of the favourites, having been printed in the Soviet Union and then sold in these countries at prices much lower than we can supply them.
The books are sold in People's Bookshops. Though the books themselves are usually quite straightforward reprints, there is, of course, in the shops a supply of other literature. The cheap reprints are an inducement to people to go into the shops and the booksellers naturally hope that the customer will purchase the other literature on view. The problem


of subsidised books is difficult, but it is also extremely important. There is no doubt that we are losing thousands of potential readers who, naturally enough, are buying other books.
I wish, in this connection, to emphasise the importance of children's books. If one sees the Russian and Chinese children's books which are circulated, particularly in India, one is struck by the great attractiveness of them and their good quality and extremely good value. So far as one can judge, the books are perfectly straightforward. There is nothing particularly subversive about them, or anything of that sort, but presumably they are again the bait to catch potential purchasers of other material.
I recognise that this is not an easy problem, but if we are to deal with the matter we must face a great many practical difficulties. It is necessary to decide where the books should be printed, whether in this country or the country of sale, where it might be much cheaper to do so, how many books should be printed and how the titles should be chosen, and so on. I do not think that such problems are insuperable, but I know that, compared with the relatively straightforward currency problem, these are matters with which it will not be easy to deal.
I cannot conclude without saying a word about films. I have a long-standing connection with the film industry and what one has said about books is true mutatis mutandis also of films. I do not suggest that films are of the same importance as books which are far more comprehensive in their interest. I do not suggest, either, that every feature film produced in the United Kingdom is worthy of Government support. But there are films of great distinction which it would be much in our interest to have shown in a number of countries to which we cannot at present obtain reasonable access.
I am thinking not in terms of subsidy, but of currency problems. I have here a list of the countries and they are the usual ones—Pakistan, Turkey, Israel, and so on, including some of the Latin American countries, Indonesia, Poland, Spain, Vietnam—into which our films cannot normally be taken, or if at all, only in small quantities.
I feel that, here again, there is a strong case for examining this problem, in conjunction with the representatives of the film industry in this country, to see whether a scheme could be worked out to enable some of our films to have a better chance of being shown in those countries. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to examine the question of children's films. That is not just a matter of currency. It may also be a matter of paying something to the Children's Film Foundation to make more children's feature films. In India especially, Russia and other Iron Curtain countries are putting in children's films.
I have raised this matter before in the House, but, unfortunately, no one seems to have done anything about it. Not only are children's films provided, but projectors are supplied free of charge, so that film clubs can be organised. If we are serious in our belief that in this country we stand for certain values which we wish to share with our friends in our countries, surely it is for the Government to take action as soon as possible to deal with this difficult situation. Because I know that the right hon. Gentleman has been trying to face these problems I wish to assure him that in anything he can do he will have the full support of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

12.25 p.m.

Miss Joan Vickers: I am pleased that the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) has taken the opportunity to raise this subject, which she did with great clarity. I wish also to congratulate my right hon. Friend on producing an excellent White Paper which has proved of interest to many hon. Members. I think that he realises the great difficulties and will do everything possible to overcome them.
I wish to say a word about the British Council. I have a great admiration for and interest in the work it does and I hope that it may be possible for the Council to concentrate more on its work in the Far East. It is essential that we get a better understanding with the peoples of the Far East. I have been impressed by the number of students coming to this country recently, from countries other than those of the Commonwealth, who are particularly anxious to secure more knowledge of our way of life. I should like particularly to refer to Indonesia, where English is the second


language. There we have no information services which would assist those anxious to continue their education and to come to our universities, and so on. It would be of great benefit to them if they could obtain more help through the British Council and through information services.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend that we might have a greater exchange of books between various parts of the Commonwealth. Not enough knowledge is available about places like Ceylon and Africa. If my right hon. Friend could arrange such an exchange it would be of great benefit, and it might not prove too difficult to do so, as the majority of these countries have the same currency. This is an important subject. It was stressed in Questions before this debate. I myself have raised the matter of the frustration experienced by people who have been educated and then cannot find the right books to read subsequently. One's attention is drawn to this difficulty particularly by the East Africa Commission and to the fact of not having sufficient money to supply the necessary books.
The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East did not refer to broadcasting to any great extent. That is another important matter mentioned in the White Paper. I was particularly interested in the educational services in Tanganyika. They were not of a very high standard, but I think that there has been an improvement. It might be possible to have a book review broadcast as we have in this country, so that people could be encouraged to inquire about books. In this country a number of people listen to books which are read during programmes like "Women's Hour", and so on, and I am sure that many people would benefit from hearing books read in broadcast programmes if they cannot actually obtain the books. We do not want other countries mimicking all our ideas, but we want the best ideas to be adopted by these various territories and that is one way in which a knowledge of books might be widely disseminated.
There is great competition from Russia, China and America. It is interesting to note what Vice-President Nixon said after visiting Africa:

A knowledge of American culture, technology, history and aspirations can best be spread by means of books and periodicals.
If the American people find it possible to put over their ideas in these countries, it is all the more important that we should do the same. They are able to spend dollars on this matter and also subsidise sales.
I realise that we are faced with a great deal of difficulty regarding the distribution of books, particularly in a country like Africa, and that is also true of a great many parts of India, where the books are sold only in small shops. Often the bookseller has no knowledge of English and does not know the kind of books his customers wish to buy. I wonder whether a system could be devised so that a selection of books could be provided for these people. Then they would be able to provide the type of books their customers wanted. That might be done on a sale or return basis. I realise that it would not be profitable at the beginning, but it would be a way of bringing such knowledge to small villages and towns up-country. I mention this particularly because books are perishable and can get eaten by white ants. It is not practicable to suggest that there should be a large selection.
I would also suggest to my right hon. Friend that more local libraries might be set up. When I was working in Malaya we distributed a lot of literature to small local libraries; we also used the mobile medical dispensaries and got them to take books around to the villages. I am concentrating my remarks upon distribution, because that is one of the greatest difficulties. A further method of distribution would be to use more frequently the women's clubs.
I hope that this matter will be further considered by the Government in the light of what we have said and that they will, in general, do everything to press forward with action.

12.31 p.m.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I would like to support briefly what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White). Both sides of the House are undoubtedly grateful to her for raising the matter and we all await with interest what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will say.
I visited India and Pakistan last year and was struck to find that one could buy English classics published by the Moscow Foreign Languages Publishing House frequently more easily and always more cheaply than those published by English publishing firms. In Asia, and particularly in uncommitted neutral countries like India, the cold war is very much a war of ideas. The rôle that books can play in that conflict is vital. The Russians take this matter tremendously seriously and they have launched a formidable book offensive. Lord Chandos has said that they are sending 4 million English books into India every year, while Sir Charles Snow, in the Annual Report of the British Council, said that the Russians are spending between ten times and twenty times more than we are in doing this kind of propaganda work in our own language.
It is not simply that the Russians are spreading crude propaganda, but that they are publishing English and Russian classics. My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East mentioned children's books. I brought back the story of the "Three Bears" for my children in a Foreign Languages version. It was a beautifully produced book written in English, in a text which was a pleasure to read aloud, and it cost 6d. I tried to buy English-produced children's books, but they were not only tawdry and shoddy, which was the fault of the publisher, but expensive, which was not the fault of the publisher.
It is important to realise the kind of influence that non-political books can have in bringing Indians and Asians generally into contact with direct Communist literature. These books are used not only to encourage the sale of Communist literature, but also to finance local Communist organisations. Instead of the melodramatic smuggling of Moscow gold, you have the import quite openly of the novels of Galsworthy, Dickens and Chekhov. They are sold at a very low price to the Communist publishing organisations in the countries concerned and the profits go into the party funds. This is an additional reason why Her Majesty's Government should be particularly active in providing British books.
The most striking consolation for us is that the Russians do all this in what

is for them the foreign language of English. The language of Shakespeare and George Bernard Shaw is still, in practice, the national language of India, in spite of controversies to the contrary. It is, moreover, a language whose culture is deeply loved in India. I attended an international seminar at Delhi University, in India, and I congratulate the British Council very much on the work that it is doing in that direction. It was touching to see the hunger for our books during that seminar of people who wanted to get into contact with the liberalising influences of British literature.
I asked some of the students whether they would prefer a scholarship at a Chinese or Russian university, or an English university. They all answered that they wanted to come to this country. There is tremendous good will towards us and I hope that we can make use of it. It may be dissipated gradually if we do not provide adequate supplies of the books they need.
No doubt the Chancellor of the Duchy is meeting a certain amount of opposition from publishers in the efforts that he is making, but I hope that the publishers will not be too short-sighted in the attitude they take on this matter. Asians and Africans are, in their development of public education, very much at the stage we were in early in the nineteenth century. All over those continents there is a tremendous upsurge of desire for Victorian self-improvement which already makes itself felt as an insatiable demand for books. But as mass literacy spreads there will be a vastly increased demand for all forms of literature and we should be ensuring now that we are ready to meet this popular demand when it develops.
I would say, finally, a word about Israel. I searched Israel for cheap British editions a few months ago, but I found such books very difficult to get, whereas there is an absolute deluge of American paperbacks. I hope that something can be done about currency on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East. It may provoke the Chancellor of the Duchy to action if I say that as far as I could see the main contact of the Israel public with the printed word from Britain is through the New Statesman and Nation, which seems to be the


only regular piece of printed literature that gets through from Britain on a big scale.
I hope that the Government will be able to announce, at the conclusion of the debate; that they will try to make more progress in getting our books much more generally available throughout the world.

12.38 p.m.

Mr. Barnett Janner: I do not propose to take up very much time in presenting a limited number of points to the Minister.
I go to Israel fairly often and I find there a very great desire for English books. A very large number of American books are being sold and American culture is thus being spread through those books. They are no doubt intended to create a desire to visit America and to study in American colleges and universities. That is partly behind the great flow of books into Israel from America. On the other hand, there is a very close attachment between the people of Israel and of this country. I find in the houses of all classes there numbers of volumes of such classics as the works of Shakespeare and of other poets and writers. The people are anxious to buy English books.
Many Israelis have asked me why they could get Russian and American books at reasonable prices, while they could not get the books that they particularly wanted to read, those which brought to them more of the British way of life and British ideas, with which many of them were conversant. This does not come only from people who have studied, or who have learned, English in England, but from a large number of the people of Israel who have come there from other countries. They have learned to read and speak English and are desirous of knowing more about our way of life, and about our classical and scientific works.
There is a difficulty over the question of currency, but the Americans have overcome that. Time after time Questions have been put in this House about the position and I believe that we ought to make a concession in this matter, it would pay large dividends. We ought to see to it that as many English books as possible are supplied in Israel and that any currency arrangements and concessions necessary for the purpose should be made. I believe that the right hon.

Gentleman would be in favour of that policy. It may be that there is a hitch at the Treasury. I do not know, but I assure him and all concerned that this great cultural people from the humblest person upwards, who have a great admiration for the classics of the world, would considerably appreciate having our books made available to them.
I look on Israel in a sense as an oasis in the vast desert of the Middle East in so far as culture and the understanding of the democratic way of life is concerned. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take that into consideration and do what he can, with reference to Israel and also in the direction indicated by my hon. Friends.

Mr. Gordon Walker: May I add my hope that among the things the right hon. Gentleman will consider, in addition to the very powerful case which has been made, will be the teaching of English to teachers in Asian and African countries through the British Council? That seems to be one of the most important things we could do.

12.41 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. Charles Hill): I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) for raising this subject, which is one in which I am intensely interested. She has described fairly and fully the problem with which we are confronted.
Obviously, there are many strong arguments why we should secure the maximum distribution of our books throughout the world. Many countries have built their educational systems on ours and we want them to continue to do so. The best way of understanding our ideas. Our background and our policies is through a reading of our books. Our books convey our achievements, also.
As the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) said, the subject is related to that of the teaching of English. We have greatly increased the resources for that purpose. In the next financial year they will be approaching £½ million; indeed, we are increasing the resources at the rate at which we can engage staff to do the work. I agree with him absolutely that an important part of our teaching of English is the


teaching of the teachers of English. As perhaps he knows, a great deal of linguistic research is going on in India and Pakistan on that subject.
The hon. Lady made a generous reference to the work of the British Council and I want most warmly to welcome and support what she said. Too little is known of the work it does. There cannot be any hon. Members who go abroad, and see that work, who fail to admire what is being done. As the hon. Lady pointed out, in the White Paper there is a reference to the augmentation of existing methods in relation to books. I want to tell the House something about that augmentation. First, there are 99 British Council libraries and help is given to maintain about 40 others. In the current 'financial year, the amount spent on new books for those libraries totals £60,000 and next year it will be £171,000. That gives a measure of the increased resources, and there is also an increase in expenditure on periodicals.
Secondly, there is to be an increase in the presentation of libraries to universities and to individuals. Thirdly, something to which I am particularly attached, is an experiment with a new kind of library. That is the kind of library which lends a book for the duration of a university course, be it for a term or a year, the limit being not on the time for which the book can be borrowed, but on the number of books which are out at any one time. There are to be two pilot libraries of this kind starting next year. If the experiment is a success, it may lead to the recasting of the library system generally.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the expenditure envisaged in the presentation of libraries?

Dr. Hill: The figure I gave of the growth covers both the increase in books on library shelves and books for presentation.
A big problem remains, as the hon. Lady said. To get it into perspective, I should like the House to have the figures for book exports from this country generally. In 1937, the total value of books sold was £10½ million and 30 per cent. of those books were exported. By 1946, the total value of books sold

was nearly £27 million and 24 per cent. were exported, but in 1957 the total value of books sold was just over £60 million, and 37 per cent., in terms of value, were exported. In terms of individual books, it is probably true that about half the production of this country is exported today. We produce a terrifying number of books. There are 300,000 titles today and 20,000 a year are being added, so the number of books available is large enough.
I want to draw the attention of the House to these figures, for the publishers have done remarkably well in themselves searching out commercial opportunities for selling books, but, of course, the problem of import restrictions remains. The hon. Lady suggested that British book export schemes have been allowed to lapse. Of the countries which used to have book export schemes, only Yugoslavia and Poland would need them today. I ought, in fairness, to say that the reasons for closing down those two schemes were not on our side. They were political reasons in the countries concerned. Even so, we have the problem of India. Indonesia, Israel, Pakistan, Poland, Turkey, Spain, and so on.
That problem is being studied intensively and the study is almost complete. I cannot give an indication today of its conclusion, but I can tell the House that it will be concluded as soon as possible. The first part of the study, as the hon. Lady said very fairly, is not a really difficult matter. The second part, the problem of low-priced books, involves a great deal more work than the first.
I shall not go into the problem of distribution, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Miss Vickers), except to say that I know it to be a real problem, particularly in retail distribution. In parenthesis, I inform my hon. Friend that there is a British Council post and a Government information post as well in Indonesia.
There is a problem of blocked currency. I shall not repeat what has been said, except to say that the Information Media Scheme, the I.M.G. scheme, is based on the conception of blocked currency. One can see no other solution of the problem than blocked currency of some kind or other, preferably related to our own expenditure, diplomatic or informational.
The import restrictions in respect of Israel are restrictions which Israel herself has felt it necessary to impose. There is every desire to sell books to Israel, and she is one of the countries which is the subject of study. May I make a comment to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), in view of his close association with a number of bodies connected with Israel? To the extent to which other money findnig its way into Israel could be related to a block currency scheme, such money could be used for the importation of books. I will say no more but merely offer a gentle hint that it need not be Government money which is blocked. It is not necessarily restricted to an official operation and could be undertaken in relation to an unofficial operation, too.

Mr. Janner: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will take into consideration the great burden which lies on Israel in respect of the large number of people who are given shelter there. The provision of books may sometimes have to take second place in Israel's currency arrangements.

Dr. Hill: I accept that, but the hon. Member's remarks gave me an opportunity to point out that there are other ways of dealing with the problem than that of direct Government action.
The second problem has been well deployed and I agree with everything which has been said. In a sense it is a compliment to the status of the English language that so many books from Moscow and Peking are finding their way in. As the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) said, these include children's books—excellent children's books. As yet, there is no obvious selection of literature for propaganda purposes and a concentration, for example, on Charles Dickens and Galsworthy, but, clearly, the propaganda potentialities are enormous. I need say no more than that. There are also signs that this kind of thing may extend to other parts of the world, particularly to countries which are emerging into independence.
I am fully alive to the problem, and a very careful study is being made of it. When I was in the United States in January I saw the people who are

responsible for the I.M.G. scheme and they were good enough to answer all my questions on it. I can assure the House that a very careful study is being made of these problems and that in due course the House will be informed of the outcome. I regard the teaching of English and the provision of books, directly or through libraries, as the most important part of our long-term information work, and I am sure that every hon. Member will join with me in that view.
May I comment briefly on films? As the hon. Lady said, the same problem of import restrictions also arises, but there is, in addition, the problem of the restrictions which are imposed for the protection of the domestic film industry. I will not hold out hope of an early solution of that problem, but I will study what the hon. Lady said. The present work is related only to books, but I will consider whether we cannot go on from books to make a study of the film problem. There are some other aspects of it in which I am particularly interested, such as the acquisition of feature films for our information services, and I hope that a more forthcoming attitude will be seen in the film industry. Negotiations are opening for next year, and I hope that we may achieve better results.
There are other problems, but they have not been raised and, if I may, I will leave the subject, saying only that I do not dissent from what has been said in the debate. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for deploying the problem in general. She has urged me to tackle a problem which I am already tackling with vigour and genuine enthusiasm in an attempt to find a solution. I hope that before long we may have a more general discussion on our Overseas Information Services as a whole. In the meantime, this has been a useful airing of the subject, for which I am grateful to the hon. Lady.

Mrs. White: May I urge the right hon. Gentleman to make it plain that he realises that time is important? Publishers cannot indefinitely keep staffs, agents and offices in countries in which they have little opportunity of selling books. This is an extremely acute point which I hope he will put before his colleagues and before the Treasury to ensure that they do not take too long to make up their minds.

Dr. Hill: I recognise that point. There has been no delay in the scrutiny of the problem, which is now complete. I cannot anticipate what may lie ahead in the way of other considerations, but I recognise the urgency of the problem and the need to find a swift solution or solutions.

COMMON EMBARGO LIST (EXPORTS TO EUROPE)

12.56 p.m.

Mr. Reader Harris: I am grateful for this opportunity, before the House rises for the Easter Recess, to put to the Government once again the overwhelming case which I believe exists for ending the Common Embargo List, which prevents this country from exporting certain goods to Eastern European countries.
This subject was last debated in the House on 13th June, 1958, and there has been a considerable change in the world situation since that date. I believe that it is the duty of hon. Members to be continually pressing the Government for the total abolition of the Common Embargo List, and that is the main purpose of what I shall say today.
I am glad to note that on this occasion the Minister who will reply to the debate is the Minister of State, Board of Trade. On a previous occasion it was the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs. I hope that this change means that the British Government regard the problem of the Common embargo list as one which relates directly to the trade of this country. That must be a good thing, because the sooner that we can remove it from the realm of international politics, the better.
When he replied to a debate on 13th June. 1958, the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs said:
We want to expand East-West trade. The relaxation of the artificial barriers would be a contribution to full employment and to the expansion of world trade, and also, I am sure, would contribute to world peace."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th June, 1958; Vol. 589, c. 635.]
I imagine that that was and still is the Government's policy.
Since then, many things have been said about the list by many distinguished people in industry and elsewhere, and everything that I have ever heard said about it has been to the effect that the

sooner the list is abolished the better. My right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft), a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, gave an interview to the Financial Times on 6th March, 1959. He is reported as having said:
Whatever may have been the original arguments in favour of a tight, strategic list of prohibited exports, it is hard to see that such a list has served much useful purpose. The resources and skills of the bloc are clearly adequate and will be made available for any specialised defence purposes. The forward surge of production could not be hampered, even if it was desirable to hamper it, more than very marginally by denying exports. The main effect of strategic controls appears to have been to encourage a rather greater and faster degree of specialisation than might otherwise have taken place.
That statement in itself is an overwhelming case for the abolition of the embargo list. There are many other reasons why the list should go. Since the last debate in the House on this subject something very serious has happened. There has been a deadlock over our negotiations in respect of the European Free Trade Area. It is, I am afraid, a fact that British industry is already beginning to feel the effect of our exclusion from any European Free Trade Area arrangements and our exclusion from the European Common Market.
British industry has already suffered. It is beginning to lose its markets in Europe and it is essential that we should get fresh markets elsewhere. It must surely be obvious that we are fools if we do not exploit to the best of our ability the enormous markets to be found in Eastern Europe and the Far East. This area covers one-quarter of the world's land mass, and has a population of about 900 million people. We need those markets, and we need them quickly, and we should remove all obstacles to our trading with them.
The embargo list is an insult to the intelligence of the leaders in Eastern Europe. It is hard to see why they should buy anything from Britain at all, or from the West, if we say to them that they can have somethings and not others. I am told that Mr. Khrushchev, a few months ago, told my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) that it would not be long before Russia had its own embargo list. There are some things, such as turbo drills, which the Russians make and which we do not make. I do


not say that a Russian embargo list would affect us very much at first, but it might in the end.
Another reason which I want to put forward, and which I believe to be very powerful, is that there is a strong feeling among businessmen in this country that we are being "taken for a ride" by other countries, notably America, France and Western Germany. I believe that businessmen in those countries are conducting sub rosa a substantial trade with the Eastern European countries. I believe that the things which they are selling are on the embargo list, but they somehow manage to get round it, which is not very difficult if one chooses to make a personal trip to West Berlin and make private arrangements with the Eastern European countries which are not far over the border.
I believe that many N.A.T.O. countries have not nearly such high scruples as we have in this country. I think that when our representatives go to the co-ordinating committee in Paris, or anywhere else, they are simply being bamboozled by the officials who attend from those other countries. They have always expressed the view that the embargo list is being observed most strictly by their own countries, but, in practice, that simply is not so. I think that we are missing an enormous number of trade opportunities.
Turning to some specific details, particular annoyance has been caused by the inclusion in the embargo list of such items as aeroplanes and aeroplane engines. As the Minister knows, I wrote to him recently about the possible export of some Armstrong-Siddeley Viper engines to Poland. These are engines which could be used for military purposes and also for civil purposes. I would have thought that if the Poles were willing to buy these engines from us, it would be to our advantage to sell them, for two reasons. The first is that if we do not sell them these engines they will get similar engines from Western Germany. Secondly, if these engines should be used for military purposes, surely, in the event of hostilities breaking out, the Poles would be cut off from any source of spares. No engine can run for long without a ready supply of spares and they would, therefore, be useless in the event of war.
I have had in the last week or two enormous deputations here at the House of Commons from workers in aircraft industries in and around Heston and Isleworth. I have had them from the Hawker-Siddeley works, at Kingston, from Napiers, and other factories whose workers live in my constituency and they have told me that they are faced with redundancy and that there are prospects of the factories closing. If that is the case, surely we are crazy not to seize every opportunity of selling aeroplane engines to Eastern Europe.
I turn to the subject of scientific instruments. The countries of Eastern Europe are willing to buy scientific instruments on a very wide scale, not because they cannot manufacture these things, but because it is more convenient in conditions of full employment which exist there for them to import them. Clearly, they have the ability to make all the instruments that we can make in the West. or at any rate, almost all, as evidenced by the fact that there are Sputniks circling the globe, but the Eastern European countries have not the ability to make these things in any great numbers at present.
If we deny them these exports, these countries will build up their own factories and, in due course, be able to manufacture these things and never want them from us. The possibility is that these Eastern European countries will build up their own products to such a point that they will be trying to export them to us, perhaps at a very much lower price than that at which we can make them. It would seem to me that if the Eastern European nations are potential aggressors, we are helping those countries to become less vulnerable in the event of war, because they will become more self-sufficient.
Before finishing my speech, I must disclose that I have a personal interest in this matter. I am export director and consultant of companies that are endeavouring to promote East-West trade. Many other hon. Members are endeavouring to do the same thing, and all of us have the same interest.
I am worried because I have heard it said fairly recently by Government spokesmen that, in their view, there is not much left on the embargo list, as a result of the alterations made in August. 1958. I would say two things about that


I think that there is a lot left on the List. First, it still covers metal working machinery, chemical plant, up-to-date aircraft and engines, electronic equipment, scientific instruments and apparatus. Secondly, if the Government think that there is very little left on the list, why not abolish it altogether? There seems no case for keeping it in existence.
I have had representations made to me by very reputable companies which are trying to export their materials to Eastern Europe, and I will give one or two instances which seem to me to be anomalies. A firm called Wayne Kerr came to me recently, a reputable, medium-sized firm making high quality scientific instruments, which wanted to export scientific measuring equipment and, in particular, radio frequency bridges for measuring transistors and testing radio and electronic apparatus. Up to 1951 this firm -used to export these very things to Russia, but now they are embargoed. I cannot see the point of that when Russia can get all these things through Switzerland, and we are now forcing her to make her own.
Another very reputable firm, Southern Instruments, which is in the same line of business, have made big efforts to export transient recorders, sometimes called oscilloscopes. These have no military significance, but they are embargoed if their accelerating potential is more than 5,000 volts. China wants these to measure the electrical surges in her electrical power stations. She cannot get them from this country, so she is getting them from other sources.
The same firm tries to export oscillographs, another form of electronic recording equipment. None of the parts going to make one instrument is embargoed, nor is there an embargo if the separate parts are put together in a box, so long as there are only one or two cathode tubes. If there are more than two cathode tubes, the instrument is embargoed. Of course, it is perfectly easy to get round the restriction by sending the bits separately. They can be put together at the other side.
These anomalies are merely irritating, both to the United Kingdom and to the Eastern European countries. When we want to get trade, there is every case for

removing causes of irritation. I know that the embargo list was altered in August, 1958. There were some relaxations, but a number of other things were added to the list, particularly that issued on 5th August, 1958.
The Prime Minister has done absolutely wonderful work in trying to bring the nations of the East and West together, and we now hope that there will be a Summit Conference in the next few months. I want to stress my belief that a Summit Conference cannot achieve any success as long as the embargo list is in existence. I do not, of course, say that if the list were immediately swept away everything would be lovely and that the Eastern European countries would immediately agree to everything we want.
I appreciate, for one thing, that even if the list were removed there would still be many things that could not be sent to Eastern Europe because they are under patents held either in Britain or the U.S.A. Nevertheless, if these items did not go, the onus would be on the owners of the patents. It would be normal business, and there would be no politics in it.
I maintain that if the embargo list is not swept away it forms a dark cloud in the background which ruins all attempts at easing tension, and I believe that it will stultify any efforts to happy solutions of our present difficulties with the Eastern European States. I believe that a hundred years ago trade followed the flag—it followed in the wake of peace. Today, it is the other way round. In this mid-twentieth century we have reached the stage when peace will follow trade. If there is to be a Summit Conference in the summer, its best hope of success would be, as a start, to sweep away the embargo list forthwith.

1.15 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan): My hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Reader Harris) was kind enough to write to me about the matter, in which he has a personal interest and which he has, of course, disclosed. As this debate was pending, I hope that he will excuse me for not having written to him. Nor, I am afraid, shall I have very much to add in my letter after I have finished speaking now.
I must say that I thought he slightly exaggerated his case at points, and I hope now to deal with all the matters he raised. He cited one or two anomalies, as he considered them. They are new to me, and I will look at them. But he gave scant credit to the relaxation that took place in August last.
Simply stated, the strategic embargo merely prohibits those exports to the Sino-Soviet bloc that we and our Allies together need to control in the interests of security. Every Government has a clear duty to control exports that could be used against its own citizens, and I have never yet heard anyone arguing in favour of complete free trade either in armaments or in these goods. Let us have no illusions about it. The Government of a country whose export is completely State-controlled is in a splendid position to operate an embargo without even announcing the fact.
Incidentally, there is a very respectable and long historical background to these controls. I understand that the first Act imposing an embargo in this country was the Assize of Arms, 1181. This illustrates the antiquity of the practice.
Today, true armaments are only part of the goods which directly and importantly contribute to a nation's ability to wage war. The embargo must take this fact into cognisance, and so covers goods which, while they have a strategic significance of a nature that cannot always be disclosed, may also have, on the surface, perfectly innocent peaceful uses. This, frankly, is one of our major sources of difficulty, and I am sure that many of the instances given by my hon. Friend are covered in this way. It is inevitable that this sort of thing should arise, and great difficulty is caused in drawing the line between those goods that are strategic and those that are of arguable importance.
We have to balance two interests. On the one hand, there is the standpoint of the trader who, wisely and sensibly, wants to sell abroad—and, goodness knows, that is important to us as a trading nation. On the other hand, there are our defence interests as a member of N.A.T.O.; and, like our Allies, we cannot ignore the unhappy facts of the present-day world, and our common interest with them in maintaining a strategic embargo on what is now a strictly limited range of goods.
When the embargo was first set up in 1949 its net was cast much wider than today. There have since been two major reviews, one in 1954 and one last year, in which we played a very large part. The common list that we have agreed with our partners in Cocom has twice been brought up to date. It has been very much pruned, and the actual number of headings that remain is not really significant. The fact is that many general headings have been greatly narrowed and made more specific.
I think that my hon. Friend did less than justice to what has been done. Many of the items he mentioned fall into a group the vast majority of which have already been released. Thus, in general, chemical plant, and most metalworking machinery are now free. The last review reduced the number of industrial headings from 181 to 118, and, of the 118, 81 were narrowed in coverage. Of course, in print, the revised list may not look any shorter than the old one, but that is because it takes more words to define closely what is strategic in order to eliminate everything else. It is true that 12 items were added—but only 12.
Frankly, one can argue about the details of the list, but no one will expect that such a list, which 15 nations have to agree—and agreement is essential to ensure uniformity and effectiveness of control—would be exactly, in every particular, what any individual member might or might not want. Even today that is the position as far as we are concerned. But others of our partners have their points of difference, too, and we all have to compromise. However, last year we substantially achieved our aim of retaining only the minimum controls necessary for our national security.
I say in all seriousness to my hon. Friend that we do not believe that the list is a grave impediment to expanding trade between West and East. It affects only a tiny part of the vast range of goods which we have to offer. It is notable that, despite all that was said before the relaxation last year, there has not been a great rush to buy the goods that were formerly embargoed, with the one exception of copper.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Viper engine, and I should like to deal with that. In general, all types of aircraft and


engines specially designed for military purposes and those that are not in normal civil use, are embargoed for export to the bloc by all members of Cocom. The Viper engine was designed for and is at present used in military trainer aircraft and target machines, and on this basis we and others are bound to regard it as a military engine and, therefore, subject to embargo.
Of course, circumstances might change. For example, if the Viper engine came into general civilian use in this country or elsewhere in the West it would be a very different matter, and it might become possible for its export to be freed. If this were so, some way might be found in Cocom to allow such exports later, but I must emphasise the word "might". It would be wrong for me to hold out any real hopes in that direction. The inescapable and conclusive fact is that no such civilian use has been found for this engine in the West.
I now turn to the point about competition from other countries, to which my hon. Friend referred. All the leading industrial countries in this sphere, including the United States. France and Western Germany, apply rules which are no less stringent than ours. Indeed, the whole idea of having an international list is to ensure uniformity of practice between ourselves and our Allies in respect of such strategic goods. Here, my hon. Friend made some allegations, and I very much deprecate the use of such words as "bamboozled" in respect of those who are our Allies and the officials serving Allied Governments. I know that that is not true, and I think that such language can only help to exacerbate the relations between us and our Allies in implementing these arrangements.
My hon. Friend made various remarks which I think even he would agree were based on hearsay. We are always willing to consider evidence. I make that quite clear to him and to anyone else who may approach us on these matters. However, the evidence is very seldom, if ever, forthcoming. If my hon. Friend wishes to bring any further matters to my notice, I shall be only too glad to consider them, but until that time and until he is able to produce substantial evidence other than the kind of remarks which he made today, I think that his case is definitely not proven.
This kind of system of international controls is absolutely necessary and we cannot think of abandoning it so long as international tension continues. If the relations between the West and the bloc become more relaxed, I have no doubt that the controls would "wither away." Do not let us forget, however, that we are dealing on the one hand, with free nations, where an agreed strategic control has to be imposed and operated, and, on the other, as I have said, we are dealing with the Sino-Soviet bloc, where it is not necessary for them to disclose to the world that there is such an embargo or such an embargo list. We have these difficult arrangements to maintain, and I do not think that any good is done by suggesting that the wool is pulled over our eyes by our Allies, or vice versa.
I think that in Cocom we have the machinery for keeping the list up to date. We hold periodical reviews as may be necessary. There are also week-by-week consultations. No system which unites the purpose of 15 nations can be entirely perfect, but we are always trying to keep the system as streamlined and as up-to-date as possible. I hope that my hon. Friend and anyone else who is interested in this subject will accept that we made a revision in August which has removed a very wide range of industrial items from the embargo list, and I hope that the House will accept the assurance that we shall, as soon as we can, abolish such few restrictions as remain.
Let me give the House an example. In the August relaxation, we took the following items away from the embargo. First, most civil aircraft and civil aero-engines. I have made the point about military equipment. We also took out of embargo the vast majority of machine tools. Another item which was taken out was petroleum refinery and oil well equipment. We also took out almost all chemical and petro-chemical plant. Almost all industrial types of bearings; all electrical generating machinery, except large mobile generators; all civil vehicles and diesel engines are now off the list. Another class which is exempt, and about which there has been a great deal of talk, is ships, except for fast vessels, and those with certain warlike characteristics. I have mentioned copper in all forms. Also excluded are most
Petroleum products, a range of


chemicals, and finally, in answer to my hon. Friend, almost all scientific instruments and a great deal of electronic equipment.
I do not think that, in the face of that great relaxation, which we hope it will be possible to continue later, it is right to suggests, as my hon. Friend did, that we are in any way neglecting the trade interests of this country if we maintain such an embargo for purely strategic purposes.

KENYA (CONSTITUTIONAL SITUATION)

1.28 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: I desire to call the attention of the House to a matter which is widely different from that which has just been discussed, namely, the constitutional situation in Kenya. In past weeks and months our attention has been concentrated, almost to the exclusion of other parts of Africa, on events in Central Africa. It seems to me and to some of my hon. Friends that before the House rises for the Easter Recess we should devote some attention to what is now happening in Kenya. It is fortunate that recent happenings in Kenya have not been quite so dramatic as those in Nyasaland, but we should not ignore what has taken place on that account.
I visited Kenya last November and again at the end of January. I gained the impression then that there was in Kenya a thoroughly explosive situation, and events which have occurred since January have certainly not contributed to any relaxation of the tension. As so often happens, this is not due to one single cause. It is due to the coincidence of a number of causes.
In addition to the constitutional disputes, to which I am going to refer in a moment, there have been the allegations—whether well or ill founded I am not now concerned—of ill-treatment and brutality in prisons and detention camps. There has been the Macharia trial on which it would not be proper to comment at this moment. There has been the recent action taken by the Kenya Government under their emergency powers against officials and members of the Nairobi People's Convention Party and the proscription of the party's weekly newspaper. Above all, there has been the impact of events elsewhere in Africa.
I think most of us will agree that one of the principal developments in Africa during the last ten years has been the steadily growing awareness in every African territory of what is going on in other parts of the continent. No one would deny that the achievement of independence by Ghana has had its repercussions throughout the whole of Africa south of the Sahara.
To take another and rather less happy example, when the Government decided in 1952 that they were going to impose Central African Federation against the wishes of the African populations of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland the effects were by no means confined to Central Africa. They greatly increased the fears of many African people in East Africa, and more especially in Uganda. The events which have taken place quite recently, first in the Belgian Congo and now in Nyasaland and Central Africa generally, can only add to the general disquiet, to use a very moderate term, that is prevailing in Kenya. Therefore, I suggest that the present state of affairs in that Colony calls for the very serious attention of the Government and of this House.
I come now to the actual subject on which I want to address the House, the constitutional deadlock. We all know that the African elected members—and the Indian elected members have followed their example—have refused to take any part in the present session of the Legislative Council. It may well be that if there is no new departure, that boycott will continue even after the present session. That means, in effect, that the government of the country is left solely, or almost solely, in the hands of Europeans and that the other races cease to participate.
In this connection, it is worth while glancing at the events of the last nine months. Rightly or wrongly—I am not arguing the merits of it now—African opinion in Kenya has never accepted the "Lennox-Boyd constitution." The Africans dislike the Council of State and they dislike, in particular, the provision for specially elected Members. Last June they transmitted to the Secretary of State their own constitutional proposals. In effect, what they asked for was a declaration that the ultimate aim of British rule in Kenya is full self-government on the basis of universal suffrage. At the same time, they laid very great


emphasis on the need for the strongest possible safeguards to protect the position of the racial minorities.
I appreciate that replies to documents of this sort cannot be sent overnight, but there was a considerable delay, and the reply to that document transmitted to the Secretary of State was not received until the publication of the Secretary of State's dispatch on 28th November. I am not trying to be polemical about this; I am merely reminding the House of the course of events. It seems to me that both the timing and the contents of that dispatch were unfortunate. When it was published, Mr. Mboya was actually on his way to London to discuss these constitutional issues with the Secretary of State. I find it rather difficult to understand why, after a delay of nearly five months, it was thought necessary to choose this particular moment, when it must have been known that Mr. Mboya with the authority of the other African elected members was on his way, to publish the dispatch because it was a document which, in effect, denied everything for which the African elected members had asked.
There was no assurance as to the ultimate intention of British rule in Kenya. There was a reference to ten years as being the period during which there could be no alteration in the proportions of the specially elected members, and it was clear that, in the view of the Secretary of State, the only matters open to negotiation between the various groups in Kenya were matters within the framework of the existing Constitution, and, so far as I understand up to now, that is still the attitude of Her Majesty's Government.
There was, however, another reason why the publication of the dispatch at that moment was unfortunate. Throughout October and November negotiations had been going on behind the scenes in Nairobi between the different racial groups. Some of the leading members of the Indian community acted as intermediaries between some of the European leaders and the African elected members. It appeared at one stage as if quite a wide measure of common ground might be discovered, but the prospects of such an agreement receded very rapidly after the publication of the dispatch, and they became even more remote in January.

The reason for that was the Answer that was given in this House, when we reassembled on 20th January, to my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway). It was certainly regarded by the African elected members as a complete rebuff.
I remember that this was the opinion of The Times correspondent and it was entirely borne out by my own impressions when I was in Kenya at the end of January. The Times correspondent said:
The rejection by Mr. Lennox-Boyd, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in the House of Commons on Tuesday of a call for a round table conference on the Kenya constitution has been received with a mixture of surprise, dismay and anger by leaders of the non-European communities in the Colony.
I know that a further statement was issued in slightly more mollifying terms the following week, and that seems to have been regarded, certainly by some newspapers here, as representing a new departure. It was not so regarded in Nairobi. The further statement—and this was issued by the Kenya Government with, of course, the authority of the Secretary of State—said:
The position is that a round table conference is not ruled out by the Secretary of State, and the Kenya Government consider that such a conference could usefully be convened only if preliminary consultations between all concerned showed that such a course seemed the best way to carry things further towards an agreement"—
and here come the important words—
within the general ambit of the present constitution on those elements in it which are susceptible to alteration.
I ask hon. Members to note those words—
within the general ambit of the present constitution.
It was quite clear, certainly to everybody in Nairobi, that all that could be discussed were comparatively minor matters—I do not say they were unimportant—which arose from the working of the present Constitution.
This month there are two fresh developments. There is the news that another delegation is coming to London to discuss the constitutional situation. It is headed by the Chairman of the African elected members, Mr. Oginga Odinga, and will include at least one European elected member, Mr. S. V. Cooke.
Secondly, there is the statement made on 7th March by Mr. Michael Blundell,


and repeated by him in his letter to The Times on 16th March. I was glad to hear the Secretary of State refer to this statement in one of the Answers he gave at Question Time today. Mr. Blundell, who was speaking for the specially elected members' association, said that in his view it would be wise to hold a constitutional conference. It is true that he qualified that proposition. He said that he thought there ought to be certain understandings and preliminary discussions before the conference was held. Apparently the specially elected members envisage a constitutional conference without the limitation of being within the ambit of the present Constitution.
Coming from Mr. Blundell and the specially elected members, that statement might have considerable significance. I am not asking today for a fresh statement of policy on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, but I hope that the Government are not going to adopt a rigid and unyielding attitude. Above all, I hope that the Government, in their conversations with the delegations and in any statements that may be made in the near future, will not rule out changes which cannot be brought within the framework of the present Constitution. To believe that we can preserve the present position of racial groups in Kenya for a number of years to come is, I suggest, a complete illusion. I hope that there is going to be a constitutional conference. That conference would be of little or no value—indeed it might be disastrous in its results—if we were limited to minor amendments and if all questions of fundamental principles, including the ultimate intention of British rule in Kenya, were to be ruled out.
The suggestion has frequently been canvassed in Kenya that before any constitutional conference is held an expert should proceed to Kenya to ascertain the views of the various groups and parties and to make his recommendations to the conference when it meets. I suppose that such an expert would play the same rôle as Lord Radcliffe in Cyprus, Lord Reid in Malaya, or Sir Keith Hancock in Buganda.
I respectfully suggest to the Minister that that is a valuable proposal. The expert who is sent out would not merely act as an adviser on constitutional forms

and precedents, but also, to some extent, as an intermediary between the various groups. He could play an extremely useful rôle in Kenya at the present time. I hope that this suggestion is not going to be ruled out.
Finally, I want to express the hope that in the next few weeks and months when we are dealing with a very tense and difficult situation in Kenya, as in many other parts of Africa, Her Majesty's Government are not going to take up an inflexible attitude from which they may later find it difficult to retreat.

1.46 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I only want to add a very few words in support of the persuasive speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot). One of my richest memories of Kenya is of a visit I made way back in 1950 when I attended a party at which there were 100 Europeans, 100 Asians, and 100 Africans.
The purpose of that party was to seek to establish an inter-racial society in Kenya. Leaders of all three communities were present, and it gave me great hope. Unfortunately, the hopes of that occasion were destroyed by the resistance of the Government in this country to the constitutional demands which were made by the African organisations.
I met their leaders and we planned demands by ordinary political constitutional means. I have always taken the view that the rejection of those constitutional demands had some responsibility for the appalling events which followed in the Mau Mau rising. The events of violence, the terror and the killing of Europeans, and even of a greater number of fellow Africans and non-Europeans, shocked and destroyed the hopes of many.
When the period of terror was over there seemed to be a hope of reverting to the aim of a real inter-racial society in Kenya. For the first time we had the elected African representatives for a time and it appeared as though their reasonable demands would be met. I want to support what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend because I believe that we are at a critical point in the history of Kenya—whether it is to advance to a harmonious inter-racial society or return to racial antagonism.
This is important not only for Kenya but East Africa, where Tanganyika, Uganda, Somalia and British Somaliland are advancing towards democratic self-government. If at this moment we could bring about a harmonious development between the races of Kenya, it would not only be of tremendous significance for the whole of East Africa, but would be an example which would have a profound influence on the grave events which are occurring in Central Africa today.
Applying that background to the points which were made by my hon. and learned Friend, I would say this. The Secretary of State for the Colonies has frequently referred to the present Constitution in Kenya as a settlement. Again and again he has used that term. It has never been a settlement. It has always been a decision imposed by the Secretary of State. When the groups in the Legislative Council failed to agree this Constitution was imposed by the Colonial Office in London, and it is an error to regard it as a constitution decided by the elected groups in the Legislative Council.
We now have the situation that members of every elected group in the Kenya Legislative Council are asking for a round-table conference and for amendments of the Constitution; not only the African group but both sections of the Asian group, the Arab group and even individual members of the European group. A delegation is coming to London which is non-racial in all those respects, and quite recently a remarkable statement was made by Mr. Michael Blundell, a member of the Government, urging that there should be a round-table conference.
I hope, in view of all these representative pressures from Kenya itself, that the Secretary of State for the Colonies will be able to modify his previous statements in this House. My hon. and learned Friend has quoted the reply which the Secretary of State made to me when earlier I put down a Question on this matter. The reply was to the effect that there could be changes in details of the Constitution, but that there must be no fundamental changes.
I want to urge very strongly indeed that in this critical moment in East Africa and Central Africa the Colonial Office must

be prepared to make changes which are appropriate to the increased tempo of events. Even a constitution of a year ago now becomes obsolete in the tempo of events in Africa, and I hope very much that the Secretary of State for the Colonies will heed the eloquent, reasoned and lucid statement and appeal of my hon. and learned Friend and will respond to it on this occasion.

1.52 p.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse: I am very happy to have this opportunity to support what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) has said and the remarks which have just been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway). I returned from Kenya a fortnight ago. While I was there for a few days I spent many hours of discussion with the African political leaders, the leaders of the Asian community, and also with a number of European politicians, and I am very hopeful that we shall be able to bring Kenya now towards the sort of non-racial democracy which is being established in Tanganyika.
What my hon. Friend has just said is right. This is a crucial time in Kenya at this stage, and I hope that the Colonial Secretary—perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will convey this to him—will not adopt an inflexible attitude. This is the time when the Colonial Office must use all its persuasive powers with the European minority in Kenya to get together with the other races and to work out a solution with them.
I spent a whole morning listening to the leaders of European opinion at the convention of associations in Nairobi just over a fortnight ago. I must admit that I was surprised to find that many of the speeches made by people from the White Highlands and European townships were reasonable and farseeing. They were asking for no more than that there should be no solution imposed on Kenya without their voice being heard. They were asking that Colonial Office rule should continue until there could be an agreed solution. This is a change, and a rather dramatic change, from the demands those representatives of European opinion were making a few years ago, and I think it is a very hopeful sign of possible cooperation between the races in Kenya.
I was also most impressed that the African elected members are now saying not only that they consider themselves to speak on behalf of African people in Kenya but also on behalf of all Kenyans, not only the black ones but the white ones as well. They said in a statement issued about ten days ago that they were looking towards an inter-racial Kenya and were asking the European minority to recognise that political leadership in Kenya was not the monopoly of the whites; that the black Africans could also give the leadership which Kenya demands.
I hope that the Colonial Secretary will receive the delegation which is coming next month in a very friendly spirit, because, as my hon. Friends have said, this delegation represents the masses of the Kenya population. Only the European elected members have stayed out, but Mr. Shirley Cooke, the European member from Mombasa, is a member of the delegation, and I congratulate him on the very courageous stand that he has taken in Kenya's politics. I was sorry to hear from him that he is considering retiring from political activity. I hope that he will reconsider that and stay in Kenya's politics, because he has a very fine part to play in Kenya in the future.
The two points which I should like to put to the Colonial Secretary are these. Let him consider making a statement about the future of Kenya, emphasising that eventually Kenya will be a democratic country, and let him try to establish a timetable for the stages towards that end. If he could give that clear undertaking I am sure that it would help to reduce the tensions which, unfortunately, still exist between the various races in Kenya.
Let him also try to begin to develop a multi-racial common roll and break away from the communal representation in the Legislative Council. I hope that he will consider abolishing the special elected seats and substituting for them common roll elected members, who will be representative not of one race but representative on the basis of a democratic franchise. I hope that very low qualifications will be laid down for these members who will be representing all the communities in Kenya.
I am sure that this is the right direction for Kenya. I am also very confident that if the Colonial Secretary will adopt a realistic and sympathetic attitude towards Kenya he will help the races to come together to establish a really successful non-racial democracy.

1.57 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: I trust that hon. Members will not mind my intervening in the debate, having come late to it. As soon as I saw the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) on the annunciator I came in at once to listen to the debate, and I shall speak for only a few moments so as to leave sufficient time for the Under-Secretary of State to wind up.
Listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) talking about the delegation which is coming over here in a fortnight's time I asked myself the question, as I had already asked this question earlier this morning, about what manner of reception the Colonial Secretary will give to the delegation.
I have in my pocket a letter from Mr. Oginga Odinga, and I think that it would, perhaps, be helpful if I were to quote from it. He is leading the delegation which, I hope, will pave the way in the near future for a co-operative, tolerant, and almost philosophical assessment by all parties and all colours in Kenya for the well-being of 6½ million people. In days gone by people talked in terms of colour in Kenya, but now, as I observed on my last visit, all there are attempting, not always with success, but none the less attempting, to establish a mixed society of the various colours and creeds. The situation is not so happy in Central Africa.
Mr. Oginga Odinga says:
You will no doubt by now have learnt that I am leading a delegation of four Africans, two Europeans and four Asians coming to plead with the Government and people of Great Britain on the urgent need for a Round Table Conference preceded by a Report prepared by a Commission of Constitutional Experts. At the same time, we need a definite statement that Kenya should now be set on the shortest road to full undiluted democracy.
The House should note the words:
… will be set on the road…
No one in his senses, whatever his colour, demands that we should have one man,


one vote tonight or next week. This is one of the canards and tales going about in Central Africa regarding the views of my own party and, indeed, of Nationalist African parties. We all recognise that for some time to come Europeans will be needed not only as technicians, engineers and doctors, etc., but, in the political sense, as partners in working towards a full and decent society.
One thing which bedevils the situation and has led to its becoming so unclear in Kenya is that the present Government in the United Kingdom will not make a declaration about the future of Kenya. I am quite certain that if the Colonial Secretary were to say, in conjunction with the Governor, Sir Evelyn Baring, that Kenya's future would be what Mr. Oginga Odinga and others would like it to be, and what the leading Europeans know will be its future and confess, in "off the record" talks, it will be, it would greatly clarify the situation. It is all a matter of creating confidence between the races. Much of the present mischief would be dispelled if the African masses knew where, ultimately, they were heading.
All round Kenya are territories where the people do know where they are going. Somaliland, with its 3 million Africans, will be independent in 1960. Uganda has been declared to be an African State. Tanganyika, following the wise words of Sir Richard Turnbull, also knows where it is going, and so does the Belgian Congo, following the wise and statesmanlike speech of the King of the Belgians about its future. All these Africans know where their future lies, but among them Kenya forms an island where Europeans, because of lack of confidence or because of the unclear views of the political party in power, will not make a declaration about the future. If we were all set on the same path towards the same goal, there would be less suspicion and we should all work for a genuine decent society for the masses of the people who live in that territory.

2.4 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Julian Amery): Whatever else we may not be agreed upon in this matter—and I think that there is a wide measure of agreement on the problem which we are discussing—we are agreed that we are facing one of the most difficult pieces of social and political engineering that has ever confronted a

Government, and a task not made easier by the rapidity with which the general background on the African Continent is changing.
The hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) took as his starting point the delays in timing between the African Members' statement of June, 1958, and my right hon. Friend's despatch of November, 1958. I should like to take the history back a little further, partly to get the balance right and partly to deal with one or two points made by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway). My right hon. Friend's proposals were first presented in public in Kenya in the course of his visit there in November, 1957, and they were then expounded in detail in the White Paper, "Despatch on the New Constitutional Arrangements", in February, 1958. It is important to go a little into the background of these proposals.
The hon. Member for Eton and Slough spoke of the present Constitution as an imposed Constitution. In a sense that is true. Why was it imposed? It is important to remember the reasons, because they have a certain bearing upon our present insistence that some informal talks should precede any further conference. At the time of my right hon. Friend's visit to Kenya in November, 1957. the African members insisted, quite reasonably, on the discussion of their claim for more seats in the Legislature, but they went beyond insisting upon discussion of that claim which, of course, we should have readily granted. They demanded its acceptance and enforcement before discussion of other outstanding matters took place. They wanted that claim accepted not only in principle, but in practice, and additional seats created before they would go on to discuss other matters.
This made a formal conference difficult and, as I am sure would be agreed, probably impossible. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State had to make his own decision and he brought forward the proposals which underlie the present Constitution. The proposals have been attacked by the African members, but it is fair to recollect that they were generally welcomed by official spokesmen of the party opposite when they were discussed in the House on 19th February, 1958.

Mr. Brockway: The hon. Gentleman says that they were officially welcomed by representatives of my party, but that was with very grave and extensive qualifications indeed.

Mr. Amery: Not very extensive qualifications from the Front Bench opposite. I was looking at the report of the debate only this morning. It was a very warm, general welcome. We were glad of it at the time and it fortified us in our view.
The African members' proposals, made in June, 1958, received the reply to which the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich has referred from my right hon. Friend in his despatch of 24th November. Frankly, I do not think that that despatch has been looked at carefully enough. The African members took it as a rejection of their demand but, in fact, it demonstrated—and if the House will look at it with care I am sure that it will agree—that there was plenty of scope for discussion of proposals on several of the matters listed by the African members in the initiative which they took in June. Discussion of these matters with the Governor could have taken place at once. There has been a great deal of misunderstanding of this and it might help if I tried to explain the contents of that despatch.
My right hon. Friend laid down at the beginning of the despatch four principles. The first one was "the maintenance of a Government in which all races in the country take part." The institution of such a Government, of course, had been the main object of the 1954 changes, and this led in due course to the appointment of an African Minister equal with his colleagues and fully responsible for a Department. This was the first initiative of its kind taken in East and Central Africa, and I think that it was a very important initiative.
I should like, at this point, to take the opportunity of paying my tribute to the present incumbent Mr. Amalemba, who as Housing Minister has done a magnificent practical job, as the House will agree, which has really improved the social conditions of his fellow Africans. There is increasing recognition among Africans of the work he has done. Hon. Members will have read of the great demonstration in his favour at Idakho the other day, when

thousands turned out to watch a presentation made to him in token of the very great work that he has done. I cannot help contrasting Mr. Amalemba's constructive and positive work in improving conditions for his people with the attitude of others whose boycott tactics debar them from doing a job and even from representing their people in the Legislature.
The existing arrangements about Ministers in Kenya, in the view of my right hon. Friend, need to be further tested by experience. This does not mean that we are not ready to review them in due course; when we have the lessons of experience to guide us, we shall, of course, be prepared to look at them again. As of now we are not prepared to reconsider the question of Assistant Ministers, but nothing is ruled out in the future, and in the course of time it may well be that this question could be looked at again. In the same way, we shall be glad to discuss at any time the question of the portfolio reserved for a native-born African.
Now I come to the second and third principles laid down by my right hon. Friend. These were "a limited but final increase in communal representation in the Legislature" and "the creation of opportunities for representation in the Legislative Council based on the non-communal principle." This really is the idea which the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) brought out in the course of his remarks. He said that he wanted to get away from the communal idea, that members should represent a particular race or community. Of course, an important initiative in this matter, though I will not say it was decisive, was taken by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation of Members for both sides of the House which visited Kenya in 1957.
At the risk of wearying the House I will quote a few words from their report:
We suggest to the leaders of each community that the intention to create additional seats in the Legislative Council offers the opportunity for a fresh examination of these problems; this should, in our view, be regarded as a matter of urgency. It may be that upon reflection and discussion they could agree upon such an examination, with the object of suggesting a franchise which, avoiding the Scylla of a general common roll and the Charybdis of the existing communal rolls, would assist in bringing together the moderate elements of all races in Kenya.


This examination, if it bore in mind the fear of the minorities of exclusion from political influence and the fear of the African that it might be used as a device to hold him back, could prove useful in suggesting a basis for a selective and protected franchise, creating a superstructure of a few common roll seats in the Legislative Council. If successful, such an experiment would provide a political outlet, and common ground, for some of the best elements in Kenya on a non-racial basis. That in itself would be an invaluable contribution to the security, stability and future contentment of the country and we sincerely hope that our suggestion will merit and receive the serious consideration of our friends in Kenya.
The members of the delegation who put their names to the report, which included this suggestion, command a great deal of respect in the views they put forward. This was held by us in the Colonial Office to be a wise proposal and influenced the decision to institute the specially elected members.

Mr. Stonehouse: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to make one point? Is he aware that the specially elected seats were not a step forward in that direction, in that they enabled the European majority of members in the Legislative Council to dominate the election of the specially elected members, and that it would have been much better if, by one step, we could have moved towards common roll elections on a democratic franchise? Will the hon. Gentleman now ask his right hon. Friend to consider having these common roll seats elected on a democratic franchise and not elected within the Legislative Council itself?

Mr. Amery: I will make a comment on the specially elected members if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. They are elected on a common roll and, therefore, they represent a fulfilment—it may not be the ideal or ultimate fulfilment—of the ideas outlined in the report which I have read to the House. There may be room for argument about the way they are elected, but the principle is a step in the right direction. That is one of the points we have strongly in mind and which I want to put strongly to the House.
The Constitution provides that the method of election can be altered. Some feel that the electoral college is unbalanced at present. Why? One of the reasons is that the African members have boycotted the electoral college. On

that point of boycott, may I correct one thing said by the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich? He was not quite right in saying that the Asians collectively were boycotting the Legislative Council. The Hindus have spoken of doing so, but a final decision has not yet been taken; the others have not done so.
To come back to the specially elected members, at present those entitled to vote for them, apart from officials, are 28 Europeans and 34 non-Europeans. Is this a workable system? Well, there is room for discussion about how far it is workable. We have not adopted a rigid attitude. We have not tried to say that this must be frozen. We have said that the balance of specially elected members' seats must remain unchanged for a period of ten years. As regards the specially elected members, this is a point which the Africans themselves have not challenged so far.
My own view, for what it is worth—and I have been only a short time in this post—is that the experiment of specially elected members has worked well. It has been successful in a number of practical matters, for example, the difficult problem of common education for all races, and has contributed to improving interracial relations in Kenya. That is really remarkable when one looks back at the troubles which occurred there so recently.
The fourth principle that my right hon. Friend laid down in his despatch was "the institution of a body of local people who, from their background of wisdom and impartiality, can prevent unfair discrimination which is detrimental to any community." I am referring to the Council of State. So far, the Council of State, which has a non-European majority, has had little need to intervene in legislation, although it has done so once in the interests of non-Europeans. It has had a great deal of work to do in scrutinising all legislation, and as we know, in this function the other place here plays an important and valuable part. By its existence it represents a pledge that Her Majesty's Government do not intend to allow discrimination in law against any community.
There are other matters outside the scope of these principles which allow of discussion. Of course there are, but there is no reason why those should not be discussed between the parties concerned


in the context of any discussion which takes place on electoral reform. In short, it is a fallacy to suggest that we have adopted a rigid attitude on this matter. We have done nothing of the kind. The Constitution laid down by my right hon. Friend was designed to evolve and to grow, but the House must remember that it is less than one year old.
I come now to the question of a conference and to the insistence which we have placed on holding informal discussions beforehand. Looking back at the circumstances which attended my right hon. Friend's visit to Nairobi in November. 1957, I think that it is justifiable to try to hold informal discussions before we proceed to anything more formal. I announced the attitude of the Government on this in reply to a Question put by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough on 5th February. I will not weary the House by quoting it again, but it is on the record.
We wanted these informal discussions, and they have been taking place. African members had a long meeting with the Governor late in February, further meetings are expected and, as has been mentioned by several speakers, Mr. Odinga is coming here. The hon. Member for Wednesbury hoped my right hon. Friend would receive him in a friendly spirit. I can think of few Colonial Secretaries—perhaps none—in recent times who have shown a friendlier spirit to visitors of whatever party and race to this country. It is also encouraging that the views expressed by Mr. Michael Blundell are in harmony with the process of informal discussions with which we are associated.
I have been asked whether we were nearer the time when we could make a statement about our objective. There has been criticism of my right hon. Friend's earlier statement that he could not foresee a time when Her Majesty's Government could surrender their responsibilities for Kenya. It is interesting that until recently the great burden of anxiety particularly among Africans, was that we should insist on retaining our responsibilities and protecting them from domination by any other element.
The Government's views on the future were set out in the despatch to which I have referred. I will make one quotation from it:
It should be made clear at this point that the Council of State"—

it was brought in because of its guaranteeing functions—
does not introduce a bicameral system of legislation in Kenya. The powers of the Council will not be such as to impair the legislative authority of the Legislative Council itself and it is only in the case of a limited class of legislation, namely, that which it finds to be discriminatory, that it will be empowered to intervene to ensure further consideration of such legislation. Nor will its creation in any way diminish or detract from the constitutional powers and authority of the Secretary of State to advise Her Majesty to regulate, by instrument or by any other powers in Her Majesty vested, the constitutional arrangements of the Colony and Protectorate of Kenya.
As I told the House on 5th February:
The present constitution has been in operation for only ten months and my right hon. Friend cannot entertain proposals which would alter in any significant ways its fundamental features. It is, however, sufficiently flexible to enable it to be reviewed constructively from time to time, but my right hon. Friend considers that preliminary consultations must be held between all concerned before there is any question of a round-table conference. The Governor has already taken the initiative by inviting the African members to have discussions with him. If this leads to discussions between all concerned and these give grounds for thinking that a conference would be useful, then it would not be ruled out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th February, 1959; Vol. 599, c. 109.]
I cannot now go beyond that, but I have noted what hon. Members have said, and I can assure them that I shall bring their remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend, and there need he no doubt that he will study them very carefully.

Mr. Foot: Can the hon. Gentleman say something about the proposal to which I have referred, and which has been canvassed very widely in Kenya, the proposal to send out a constitutional expert in advance of a conference?

Mr. Amery: I have stated that I am unable to go beyond what I have so far said, but I will bring this, along with other points, to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Sir Frank Soskice: If the hon. Gentleman is unable to say whether the Secretary of State could authorise any major departure from his constitutional proposals, is not that just a situation in which the services of such an expert as has been mentioned could be of the utmost usefulness?

Mr. Amery: I will note what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. I have already stated that I am not in a position to comment on it.

Mr. J. Johnson: Would it be impossible to make a statement about what the future society of Kenya is to be in two, five or ten years' time? Perhaps we might sonic time be told whether the future destination of the people of Kenya is to be as a democracy, without this committing anyone inside or outside the Government to a statement about the next constitutional step and the composition of the Legislative Council in a few years' time.

Mr. Amery: I will note what the hon. Member has said.

NOISE ON THE ROADS

2.25 p.m.

Mr. John Baldock: The very great increase in the volume of traffic on our roads at the present time is giving rise to some of the greatest problems with which we are faced. One readily agrees that a vast amount of thought and expenditure is being devoted to a great many aspects of dealing with the problems which arise from the very heavy increase in road traffic.
However, there is one aspect of the increasing volume of road traffic which has not been given sufficient thought. That is the noise level which is created in our cities and on our main roads, and even on country roads on some occasions, by some of the traffic. I hope that this is a point which will commend itself to the Government for action. It has one inestimable advantage over most solutions to problems in that it requires extremely little expenditure in order greatly to reduce the nuisance, disturbance and distress which a lot of noise on the roads undoubtedly causes.
I believe it is generally conceded by those who understand those matters that a great deal of nervous effort has to be expended by a person who is working in noisy conditions, whether it is done consciously or subconsciously. If the person is to concentrate on his work and there is a heavy background noise, it is an exhausting process.
In city streets, it is difficult—apart from improvements in building design, acoustic insulation, double glazing and so on—to eliminate the background noise, although I believe that great improvements can be effected by the way streets are laid

out. If the streets consist simply of cliffs of buildings down each side of the roadway the noise reverberates and reechoes and rises up between the cliffs so that the noise level is almost as great at the top of the buildings as it is on the ground floor. If the blocks were broken up this noise would escape to a greater degree.
I want to draw the attention of the House to the acceptable level in the emission of noise by certain types of vehicle. As I have said, I do not consider that the general traffic background noise is something which can be entirely eliminated, certainly not from the road aspect—that is rather more a constructional and planning point—but I am asking that action should be taken to deal with the exceptional and intermittent noise which is the type which is really objectionable; it is not just the general hum of traffic but the particularly loud noise which every now and then breaks the rhythm. I believe that noise to be entirely unnecessary, and I think it could be eliminated at very little expense, as I shall suggest.
I consider that the noise emitted by some types of vehicle is, at the present time, entirely unacceptable. I would say that the chief offenders in this respect are certain types of motor bicycle, motor scooters, sports cars and some kinds of lorries. It is not unusual to hear a motor bicycle during the day or in the early hours of the morning going down the street making a noise which is entirely comparable with that of a machine gun, being almost as loud. I find it very difficult to understand why we have to tolerate that kind of thing.
Making that sort of noise is illegal now. The Motor Vehicle (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1955, stipulate that every vehicle propelled by an internal combustion engine shall be fitted with a silencer, expansion chamber or other sound-reducing device in order to keep at a reasonable level the noise caused by the escaping exhaust gases of the engine.
Undoubtedly, many vehicles are particularly obnoxious in this respect, especially motor cycles and sports cars. They probably do not make an excessive noise when they first come from the manufacturers, but, after having been purchased and when they have been improved, in the view of the owners, by the removal


of the silencer or the knocking out of most of its insides, a hellish noise is created which is completely unnecessary.
While appreciating that it is a matter more for the Home Office than for the Ministry of Transport, I stress that the police could be a great deal more zealous in enforcing the law in this respect. It is laid down in the Motor Vehicle Regulations that excessive noise should not be emitted, and I do not think that the police enforce those Regulations sufficiently severely.
In reply to a Question which was asked recently, I was told that in the whole of 1957 there were only 4,300 prosecutions in the whole of England and Wales for execssive noise from motor vehicles. In order to get the problem under control, the police will have to exert themselves to a much greater extent than that. If there were a thorough determination to prevent this kind of nuisance, much of it would be stopped.
If the police argue that they cannot enforce the Regulations more zealously because they do not have time, in view of their many other duties, I refer them to a recent Adjournment debate when I suggested that traffic officers should be appointed to enforce road regulations, and with that specific duty and no other. If the police find that they cannot manage the traffic problems as well as their other and more urgent problems, they should agree to traffic officers being appointed to assist in this road problem as well as many others.
The police can enforce the Regulations only as they stand, and my second point is that the Regulations require much more amplification and definition. Simply to say that a suitable and efficient silencer should be fitted does not fit the bill. It is not sufficient to say that the silencer should not be tampered with so that excessive noise is emitted. What is now required is a permissible emission of noise by a particular class of motor vehicles, and that level should be laid down quite definitely. I understand that that can be done in concise and scientific terms. There should be a standard of so many decibels at a distance of so many feet for each class of vehicle. This is a measurement which can be made easily by an instrument called a decibel meter which costs about £140, not a very large

sum. The installation of some of these instruments is the total expenditure involved in any of my proposals this afternoon.
Regulations should be made about the number of decibels for different types of vehicles. That would give the manufacturers a guide and it would be up to them to see that vehicles which they made came within that range. I am sure that motor manufacturers are anxious to co-operate in this respect and many have done much experimental work to reduce the noise of vehicles which they make. There would be no resistance to the idea from that quarter.
The next question would be the subsequent enforcement of those standards. Presumably, the police would not find it difficult to detect vehicles whose silencers had been tampered with, and which made a great deal more noise than when they were originally issued by the manufacturers. It might be said that the police would find it difficult to take the numbers of offending vehicles, but most of them will use the same road day after day. They will have to stop at traffic lights, where there always seem to be large concentrations of police. There would be no difficulty in enforcing these provisions if there were a determination to do so.
Another source of noise due to a vehicle not being maintained in the condition it was in on leaving the manufacturers, a noise which can be quite unnerving, is that which comes from a vehicle which regularly backfires, something which is entirely due to lack of maintenance. This is something which the police should follow up.
The matter can be taken a stage further. When annual vehicle tests are carried out, a procedure which I understand is to start in the autumn for vehicles which are 10 years old or more, it will not be difficult, when the vehicles are taken through their mechanical tests for brakes and other appliances, to see that their silencers are also tested and not emitting more than the permitted amount of noise. That could be part of the requirement of the annual test. When that test is eventually applied to all vehicles every year, we should get an assurance that all vehicles were efficient in this respect and that their silencing equipment had not been tampered with.
The principle of the measurement of noise in decibels is already accepted in some byelaws where the permitted noise of a road drill, measured in decibels, is given statutory force. I believe that a road drill must not make more than 90 decibels at a distance of six feet if it is to conform with the law. Presumably, it would be equally possible to lay down the amount of noise which a vehicle should make at a given distance.
This is a growing source of nuisance, not because of the new vehicles being manufactured, although certain types of two-stroke engined scooters make a great deal of noise, but mainly because of neglect of maintenance and deliberate tampering with the exhaust system. On the roads there is too high a proportion of vehicles, especially motor cycles and sports cars, which make a distressing noise and which cause great disturbance by day and night. I have had complaints from people who have been regularly awakened at night by vehicles of this kind. The complaints have come from people living in cities or near main roads in the countryside.
It is not in the general interests of the community that people should be obliged to tolerate the nuisance of excessive noise when it would be simple and inexpensive to prevent it. I appeal to my hon. Friend to give this matter serious thought. If he takes the two simple steps which I have suggested, it will be possible to reduce this nuisance considerably and to eliminate one of the great sources of strain and irritation which has become part of the development of road transport in this country.

2.40 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Russell: I should like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Baldock) in the appeal which he has made. I do not think that sufficient attention has been paid to this problem, particularly, as my hon. Friend pointed out, to the nuisance caused by some motor cycles and sports cars.
There is one aspect which my hon. Friend did not mention, and that is the noise of gears, especially of heavy lorries. I know that we have made a great deal of progress in recent years, especially in connection with buses. Twenty or thirty years ago, buses probably made much

more noise than they do today, but I do not think that quite the same progress has been made with heavy lorries. As there are new systems of automatic transmission now available which avoid not only the actual changing of gears but the noise of lower gears, I wonder if my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can tell the House whether there has been any progress in this direction, with a view to heavy lorries being fitted with automatic transmission, as some motor cars are at the moment.
I am fortunate enough to possess a motor car which has automatic transmission, and the only noise which it makes in the equivalent of low gear is a swishing noise. There is not the normal grinding noise of low gears. If transmission systems like that could be applied to heavy lorries, it would greatly reduce the amount of noise which these vehicles make, particularly when going up hill and when heavily laden, and we get many of such vehicles on the roads today.
In reply to a Question, my hon. Friend told me about different organisations carrying out research into this problem, not only the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, but the many research organisations in the motor industry as well. I wonder if my hon. Friend could give us, if not now at some future time, more details of the amount of research work going on in connection with this problem, and perhaps could tell us whether it is being given all the support it possibly can have, with a view eventually to reducing to the absolute minimum the nuisance from this kind of noise.

2.42 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Baldock) on securing a place in today's Adjournment debates in order to discuss this very important matter of noise on the roads. I confirm that he correctly recited Regulation 20 of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1955, which is the usual one used to control noisy vehicles.
There are, however, other Regulations as well, which I might mention in order to fill in the picture as to what the law is in this matter. Regulation 77 makes


it an offence to use a cut-out or to alter the silencer to make it more noisy, or to keep the silencer in other than good and efficient working order. Regulations 81 and 82 make it an offence to cause excessive noise through mechanical defects or lack or reasonable care on the part of the driver. Regulation 106 enables the police and Ministry officials to test vehicles' silencers in spot checks. This is not often used.
Obviously, in the main these Regulations are qualitative and not at all easy to enforce. I have consulted my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department on the question of enforcement, and I am told that the police usually use Regulation 77, which is concerned with defective silencers and is the most specific of the Regulations to prove, if the matter comes before a court. Even that is not without difficulty, because when a noisy vehicle comes along, unless the police officer is pretty quick, it is soon out of sight before he can take its number and apprehend it.
Again, Regulations 81 and 82 concerning excessive noise are very much more difficult. They would cover the case, with which we are all familiar, of the sports car in the early hours of the morning doing a very violent acceleration in low gear and disturbing the peace of the whole neighbourhood. Because of the qualitative nature of the Regulations, it is not at all easy to obtain convictions on them. My hon. Friend gave figures of prosecutions in 1957 for the whole country, which were 4,354, with 2,405 written warnings, and he asked for stricter enforcement. He neatly produced an argument that he could offer the Home Office a way out of its manpower difficulties in that it might engage traffic officers to deal with some of these traffic offences, so that there would be more police officers free to deal with other offences. I will pass on his constructive suggestion to my hon. and learned Friend.
I was also asked whether we could go further. I think we can, but I think it would be right to explain to the House that the difficulties are very considerable. This is a most complex subject. My hon. Friend suggested three points with which he thought we ought to deal. First of all, he wanted a regulation for a maximum noise level for each type of

vehicle which would be measured in decibels. He also wanted all new vehicles to be constructed to conform to that level and old ones to be checked at the annual vehicle tests which we are about to start this summer. If all that were possible, it would produce a very satisfactory result. We are moving in this direction, and I think we are moving the right way by means of voluntary agreements with the manufacturers.
The first voluntary agreement is now in existence. It is with the motor-cycle manufacturers, and covers what is probably the field of the greatest offence. The noise limits for different sizes of machines, the acceleration tests and the nature and conditions of the tests have been agreed with the motor-cycle manufacturers' association, and were recommended to the individlual manufacturers last autumn.
I should say straight away that, on the whole, manufacturers are most co-operative and should be given credit for their initiative in trying to meet the growing public opinion which wants to see the general noise level limited. I think the fact that they have made this voluntary agreement among themselves is good evidence to show how co-operative they are.
I should here like to interpose, for the information of my hon. Friend, that the problem of testing the volume of noise is a very difficult one. There is now a machine which is thought to be reasonably satisfactory, but even that is not finally proved. This is only the beginning of the problem. Then we have to decide under what physical conditions we are to carry out the tests. There is the problem of what is called ambient noise—noise from other things happening or noise reflected from certain buildings. Therefore, it is necessary to define the size of the area in which the tests should take place to ensure that ambient noise does not interfere and give an inaccurate result.
With regard to the example which my hon. Friend gave, that of a regulation for the road drill of 90 decibels, we have all suffered from that machine. If ever there was a hellish noise, it is that of a road drill working outside one's house. My ambition would be to have a regulation to control that noise at a level far lower than it is at present. The actual measurement of noise has not reached


the precision at which it can be satisfactorily drafted into regulations. I think that it will be overcome, but it has not been overcome yet.
We have not advanced quite so far with motor cars, in that we have not reached a formal voluntary agreement, but there is no problem with the average motor car. It is usually well designed, and the manufacturers take great care to see that the noise level is low. Only very rarely does it cause a nuisance. The sports car is the main trouble, but there again the manufacturers have been co-operative. I recall one type of sports car which was rather noisy. We discussed this with the manufacturers, and they quickly improved the silencing arrangements. In due course it would be quite possible to proceed to a voluntary agreement on lines similar to those of the agreement we have reached with the motor-cycle manufacturers.

Mr. Baldock: Are these voluntary arrangements based upon a certain number of decibels, or is it just a question of personal judgment whether the noise is excessive?

Mr. Nugent: They are based on a certain number of decibels. I believe that they were set at 85 and 80, which is rather lower than my hon. Friend's figures. I will give him the full details. They are set at a precise level, to be measured by a noise machine.
There is also the question of the heavy commercial vehicle, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell). Some of these vehicles undoubtedly are noisy on occasion, and they must also be dealt with. My hon. Friend mentioned the question of gears. The gear noise trouble will be overtaken with the progressive improvement of mechanical devices. More and more commercial vehicles will be fitted with automatic transmission, in the same way that London omnibuses now are, and as time goes on that factor will probably be eliminated.
When these voluntary agreements are working, and have been modified by experience—because we shall certainly meet difficulties—we can start framing regulations, and I think that we shall do so. I should like to see them made reasonably progressive. We should set

the noise level at a certain height, with the intention of reaching a lower level in due course, but we must be reasonable, because the lower we set the limit the more power is taken out of the vehicle and the less is available for pushing it along. Even the ubiquitous moped, which can make a filthy noise, sometimes makes no noise at all. The elimination of noise can be achieved if the intention is there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough asked whether silencer testing could be included in the annual vehicle testing which we are going to start this summer. I will go as far as to say that we shall consider the point, but we certainly cannot introduce it to start with. We must limit testing to the three points that we have already declared. Great difficulties are involved in bringing the scheme into effect and it would horrify me to have to introduce another aspect of test at this time. We may be able to do so in the future. It will not be easy, because in order to ascertain whether a silencer is in good order it would be necessary to disconnect the exhaust pipe and put some kind of a rod into the silencer. This will take some time and cost a certain amount of money. It may be possible to do it in future, and we shall certainly bear the fact in mind.
In the nature of things, these developments will take some time to mature, but I hope that I have said enough to convince the House, and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, that we are moving in the right direction, although it will take time to reach the point at which we are aiming.
Regulations of themselves do not cure noise. I am not familiar with motoring in all the European countries, but my impression is that countries such as France, Switzerland, Holland, Western Germany and Sweden, which have such regulations, are, on the whole, noisier than we are. I would give Italy the accolade, but it is only fair to say that she has no such regulations.
The kind of noise is sometimes more significant than its intensity. That is another aspect of the matter that we must bear in mind. In addition, we cannot get away from the fact that the heavy flow of traffic alone—the tyre noises on the road—can become very troublesome if it goes on continuously and can be heard


in houses by the roadside. That happens very often nowadays. I am also inclined to think that in this difficult problem of the control of noise the disposition of individual citizens is a decisive factor. As a nation we compare very favourably with our neighbours. Generally speaking, people here try to avoid making noise, and certainly the restraint with which motor car horns are used here is in marked contrast to the situation in most neighbouring countries.
Nevertheless, I agree with my hon. Friend that noise is the enemy of mankind. It causes a strain on the nerves, it is extremely trying and tiresome, and how much it adds to ill-health is quite beyond me to predict, although I am certain that it causes additional strain in the high-speed world in which we live. Traditionally, noise was a weapon of war. One of the ways of frightening one's enemy was to make as much noise as possible. In this connection I was thinking of the Biblical reference to the siege of Jericho. The besiegers had only to go round the city seven times, making sufficient noise, and down would come the walls. I would think that if a modern vehicle had run only three or four times round the walls of Jericho they would have fallen down. There is no doubting that noise is the enemy of mankind, and in the world in which we live, with our civilisation becoming increasingly mechanised, the problem of controlling noise is a very serious one.
I accept the Ministry of Transport's share of responsibility in doing what it can to limit, and, if possible, to reduce noise. My personal feeling is strongly in sympathy with that of my hon. Friends, and such additional impetus as I can give to the developments that I have been describing I have given, and I shall certainly continue to do so. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this interesting subject before us.

RADIOACTIVITY, GREATER LONDON

2.58 p.m.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: This is a complicated subject both because it is highly technical and also because there are a number of lines of approach to it. Therefore, partly for that reason, and partly because I think a special case can be made for regarding the London area as a separate entity. I shall confine what I have to say largely to the problem of radioactivity in Greater London.
There appear to be two main sources of danger from radioactivity. The first is the one most in the public eye, the danger of fall-out following nuclear tests. These produce quantities of strontium 90 which descend in rain from the upper atmosphere. It has been stated by scientific correspondents recently—there was a report in the Observer a few days ago—that from all over Europe there have been increases of 200 per cent. to 400 per cent. in the average level of radioactivity in air and water, a large part of which must emanate from this radioactive fallout resulting from nuclear tests.
In the last few days also we have been informed that the time of residence of strontium 90 in the upper atmosphere is not so long as was previously thought. It is now considered that its half-life is two years, and not seven as was previously estimated. This has caused a great deal of public concern, as also has the fact that a number of other assumptions on which we based our estimate of the danger from this radioactive fall-out appear to have been challenged.
There is the question not only of the rate of fall-out of strontium 90 from the stratosphere, but the uniformity of its distribution. The United Nations experts reported in 1958 that, so far from being uniform, the density in the northern hemisphere is two to three times as great as in the southern hemisphere, which is something that could be very significant when we are trying to assess the radioactive content of imported food.
The third point which I wish to emphasise in this connection relates to the difficulty of forecasting the power released from nuclear tests. The official estimate of the Eniwetok test in 1952 was that it was expected to release one


megaton, whereas it actually released five megatons. A test on 1st March, 1954, was expected to release two megatons, but released 14 megatons, and on 27th March, 1954, a test expected to release three megatons actually released 17 megatons. I stress these variations which have appeared in the forecasts merely to show that we cannot be certain about such estimates and therefore we must be extremely cautious in everything we do to protect ourselves against radioactivity.
The situation is so uncertain, so little is known about it, that we must make quite sure that we are taking every possible precaution to protect ourselves against such variations. From the evidence, it would seem that we are not at present concerning ourselves nearly enough nationally with the monitoring of imported foods. We are concentrating on home-produced food and on the areas where it is produced. We are not, as I understand it, monitoring imported food to any extent, with the exception of imported flour.
The second angle from which I approach this problem of radioactivity is what I might call the peace-time uses of radioactive material. I do not think I can do beter than to quote what the medical officer of health in my constituency has to say about this. He summarises the dangers in a locality, which could be important from the point of view of public health, as the presence of a nuclear power station in or within a few miles of any area which, presumably, would constitute a potential danger, always assuming that things go wrong. Then there is the danger of radioactive wastes which may be discharged into any water course running through an area either to a greater or a lesser degree. Radioactive waste can also be discharged into drains and therefore into sewers.
Apart from the normal amount of radioactivity in the air there is a possibility of an increase following a disaster at an atomic plant—for example, the disaster at the Windscale plant, which caused a great deal of concern to medical authorities in the Greater London area just after it occurred. Following any mishap which involves radioactive material there is the danger of contamina-

tion of buildings, roadways, individuals or foodstuffs. That is his estimate of the possible problem which he, as medical officer, might have to face at any particular time.
With regard to the problem of radioactive waste, there are strict regulations for hospitals, which produce a very large proportion of it. It has been estimated that the sum-total of hospitals using unsealed radioactivity may contribute more radioactivity to effluent than Harwell. This is quite a serious problem. Many local authorities have hospitals within their boundaries but they know very little about the amount of radioactive waste that is being discharged or what is happening to it when it has been discharged.
I am confining what I have to say mainly to London because London is a special problem. It represents the greatest concentration of population in the United Kingdom, there being about 10 million people living in the Greater London area. This is a much higher density than in any other part of the United Kingdom. The risks, if there are any, are therefore greater in this concentrated area. The problem affects a number of different local authorities, not only the London County Council but the Middlesex, Kent, Surrey, Hertfordshire and Essex County Councils, and possibly a small part of one or two others, as well as the district councils concerned. The greater part of the food supply of the area comes from outside London, either from other parts of the country or from abroad. Anything that goes wrong in this area will obviously be very serious, when there is such a concentration of population, and will present a special problem.
Another factor concerning London deserves special consideration. It is the fact that most of the surface of the London area is covered with buildings, asphalt or cement, which are impermeable. When rain falls and brings down deposits of strontium 90, these deposits, instead of going into the soft two inches of top soil as they do in open country, tend to be concentrated in the drains and sewers, particularly the storm-water sewers. There may therefore be a very special problem with the sewers, and with radioactive waste and deposits of strontium 90 in the sewage.
It is difficult to find out anything about this, because very little seems to be known. I have spoken to public controllers, medical officers of health, local authority engineers and people in public works departments, and they know very little if anything, about it. This is another very special problem which deserves careful examination. Local authorities, and their medical officers of health in particular, are concerned with their own local people and not with national averages which may cover up local problems. They are concerned with the amounts and kinds of radioactive deposits in their own areas.
It is significant that in the Greater London area there is considerable concern about this problem. The London County Council keeps a check upon atmospheric pollution and it monitors for radioactivity in this respect. The Metropolitan Water Board has its own check, in addition to national checks on the water supply from the River Thames. I do not know what happens about radioactive waste lower down the river and in the Port of London. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can tell me, or if anyone knows, what is happening there.
One local authority not far from my constituency is so concerned about air pollution that, not content with the fact that the L.C.C. monitors for radioactivity coming from the air, it has, in setting up its own smoke control scheme, purchased a daily smoke and sulphur dioxide apparatus and two deposit gauges. When the pads collect impurities from the air it does a rough and ready monitoring itself with apparatus from the Civil Defence department. Not many local authorities do that, but it illustrates the concern which some public health authorities feel about this matter.
Middlesex County Council has gone on record as asking the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to make an effort to secure a co-ordinated policy among the various authorities to create a central information bureau on radiation levels in food, air and water which would supply information to local medical officers at three-monthly intervals. Also, it has asked that establishments using radioactive substances should be registered with the local authorities so that medical officers of health can know of them and give advice in the event of

accident when there might be added risk of contamination through smoke or sewers. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government also recognised the interest of local authorities in the problem when recently it sent a circular to the Association of Municipal Corporations, which has gone to local authorities, drawing attention to what has been done in this respect. The general tenor of the Ministry's circular, however, is that it should be left on a national level and local authorities should not themselves engage in monitoring.
I wish to emphasise the point I made earlier that all this concern is due to the fact that so little is known and so little information is available, but it is recognised by responsible public servants that the essence of radiation hygiene is that it must be entirely preventive. This is an evil that cannot be seen, it cannot be touched, smelt or felt. If we do see the effects we have failed; that is the essence of the problem. We cannot let it reach the point at which we can see its effects, or we shall have to admit that we are beaten.
In this connection, I should point out that the United Nations Report last year showed beyond doubt that those members of the world population whose calcium intake is through rice rather than through milk are already cornmittted irrevocably to bone strontium which will exceed the level set by the Medical Research Council in its famous Report of 1956 as needing "immediate consideration" if approached. Rice-eating peoples have already reached six times as much bone strontium in their bones as we have in this country. That is the measure of the danger. If we get to that point we shall have failed to take the necessary preventive action which I am urging on the right hon. Gentleman that we should be considering today. Public Health Inspectors have a right to know when to expect excessive radioactive contamination, and how and what to sample. As public health inspectors, public health analysts should have a diversity of means at their disposal for sensitive radioactive analyses.
I should like to summarise what I want to ask the Minister. This is a problem for which local authorities, particularly the public health departments, have a responsibility. I should like the Minister, if he will, to examine it with the other Ministers who are concerned with it. The


other Ministries involved are the Ministry of Health, whose interest is obvious, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, from the local authority angle, the Ministry of Agriculture, from the point of view of the examination of food, the Ministry of Power, from the point of view of nuclear power establishments, the Ministry of Labour, from the point of view of factory inspection, the Home Office, which is concerned with police and fire-fighting radioactivity hazards. the Ministry of Education, which issues guidance on X-ray apparatus in schools and colleges, and the Prime Minister, who has overall responsibility. That list probably indicates that the time is approaching when there should be greater co-ordination of all this work, possibly under a Minister of State.
What I am asking the Minister to do today is to discuss with these Ministries the concern of local authorities and, possibly using London as a pilot scheme, to set up some joint board of local authorities, for example the food and drugs authorities, which would be the county councils, in liaison with the district councils, which are concerned with public health. I ask him to consider establishing some machinery whereby this London joint board can be responsible for the monitoring of food being brought into the area, for the monitoring of air, water and rainfall and for the examination of radioactive waste. I understand that the Minister of Housing and Local Government proposes shortly to discuss the question of radioactive waste with local authorities, and I hope that the Minister will bear this point in mind when he does so. There should be some machinery in the Greater London area established for local authorities who have to deal with this.
Secondly, I ask the Minister to urge the appropriate Ministry to supply medical officers of health with a list of all establishments in their area using radioactive material. In a reply on 23rd March, the Minister of Housing and Local Government said that his Department would give an appreciation of the extent to which radioactive materials are used in their areas to medical officers of health on request. There is no doubt that they should have a full list, whether they ask for it or not. They should be told of the establishments which are using these processes in their areas.
Thirdly, there should be a scheme of instruction for public health inspectors. The Atomic Energy Authority, I believe, has a committee which is reporting about training in this field, and it seems to me important that when it is considering training it should consider also the training of public health inspectors in order that they may know exactly what the problem is and how they have to deal with it in any emergency. It is also very important to build up a panel of health and safety specialists. There is a great shortage in this field—there are not enough people who know sufficient about this problem to be able to deal with it adequately.
I am afraid that I have taken rather a lot of time. There is a great deal more that I wanted to say, and I press the Minister to realise that what I have said is probably quite inadequate to represent the strong public feeling which exists on this problem and the belief, which is felt in particular by local authorities in this area, that they should be given a greater say in the control of this problem where it concerns their own people and their own areas.

3.20 p.m.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: May I have a few minutes in which to emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) has said? This is the most important debate that has been held in the House, and I am sorry that the benches are not better filled. It has been borne in upon us lately that scientists on whom this House is dependent, and who have to advise the various Ministers when answering Questions from both sides of the House, have lately been proved to be absolutely wrong. This is very important.
I am not asking the Minister to be controversial over this; I am just asking him to be receptive. I think that he would agree that we have treated Dr. Libby as an oracle on this matter. Dr. Libby, as my hon. Friend said, has recently been proved quite wrong in his prediction as to the fall-out of strontium. Dr. Libby is an important member of the Atomic Energy Commission. The whole of the United States of America and, indeed, the whole world listened to what he said about atomic energy: but he has been wrong.
The Argus project emphasises in a dramatic way that the Service chiefs in the United States will make tests without consultation with the scientists or the public health authorities. They say that their tests have been in the upper atmosphere and that the fall-out will not affect the earth's atmosphere. Already, several scientists have been proved wrong. Again, we are waiting to hear whether this is correct or not.
A few weeks ago we learned that a mistake had been made because Euratom said that the concentration in the earth's atmosphere by radioactivity is much greater than was anticipated. The time has come when the Government must not repeat what the scientists and militarists tell us after contamination by radioactivity has taken place. As my hon. Friend has said, we must adopt a preventive attitude. Our ignorance on this matter is abysmal. Each time a Question is put to the Government Front Bench the Answers, quite understandably, from the Minister downwards, are a little vague.
What we want to inject into the Minister is a sense of urgency. We want him to convey to those who can arrange this the opinion that this side of the House feels that there should be one Minister, who not only has the knowledge of the scientists but who will make it his particular job to interest himself in this important question of radioactivity.
The hon. Member who has the next Adjournment debate has not yet arrived, so perhaps we may devote a few more minutes to this subject. I hope that the Minister will not be impatient, because this is a matter which concerns him and his family as well as hon. Members and their families on this side of the House. This is a matter which concerns the whole world. It is not a party matter.
I emphasise this by one small illustration. The Minister may well say that he has heard most of the points which my hon. Friend made. I wonder whether he has heard this one. The day before yesterday, I myself would not have been able to make it. Yesterday I was on a train, sitting in my carriage, when I suddenly heard the words "radioactivity", and there was a slight altercation. I went to the guard's van, where I found an extremely nice guard saying to a porter, who had his arms clasping

a large parcel, "I won't take it in". I said, "What is all this about?" The guard said, "It contains radioactivity. I am not going to have it here. I have been instructed not to have it here."
I felt like Alice in Wonderland. I thought "How can it be that we carry freight of this kind in the guard's van on a very crowded train." I said to the guard" How do you segregate this". He said, "With a piece of chalk, I draw around it in the van a white line, to a radius of four feet". I thought that this could not be, but I did not want to embarrass this excellent public servant by asking any more questions.
I got back to the House last night, made a few inquiries and read the regulations headed:
Conveyance of Radio Active Material by Passenger or Parcels Train.
Perhaps I may just quote the relevant items. They read:
Packages to be segregated at least 4 ft. not only from undeveloped films but also from articles of luggage, Post Office bags, and other packages the contents of which are unknown in trains or on station premises. Particular care must be taken to ensure that this traffic is not placed within 4ft. of an adjacent passenger compartment:
Again:
In the majority of instances the most suitable arrangement will be to load the package in a corner of the train van at the buffer end. Where possible, a chalk line should be drawn on the floor indicating the required 4 ft. segregation.
They go on:
Owing to the possibility of dust on the floors of vehicles becoming slightly activated, the vehicle floor should be swept before radio active traffic is loaded.
In so far as this was in London, it relates to what my hon. Friend has said. Yesterday, through that guard's van went passengers for two breakfasts, one coffee, two lunches—crowds passed through. Children went in to look out of the window. I looked on the floor, and saw a blur of chalk that no doubt related to yesterday's traffic. How were those people to know that with one foot on the chalk they were walking over the line? This is a quite incredible state of affairs.
I am not for one moment blaming the railway officials. They were observing the instructions absolutely. What I do say is that here is a danger that, as my hon. Friend has said, cannot be seen, cannot be understood but a danger,


nevertheless, to which people are subject today. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say, as so often we have heard him and his colleagues say to us, "There is only a little radioactivity connected with the parcel. There is only a little radioactivity from television. There is only a little radioactivity from your luminous watch. There is only a little radioactivity from the granite walls."
What the Paymaster-General must realise is that this is cumulative, and that people are now exposed to a danger of which they are ignorant. They are exposed as, in the days of Pasteur, they were exposed to the danger of germs. When Pasteur told the world that there are lethal germs in the air, some laughed, and for fifty years Pasteur was treated as a crank.
We are now exposed in the same way, and I repeat my hope that a responsible Minister will say to us that the time has now come when the House must be informed by a Minister who devotes his time to this problem, so that the people should be protected from this danger.

3.39 p.m.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): The hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) who has raised this important matter of the monitoring of radioactivity in the Greater London area obviously knows a great deal about the subject, and I fear that there will not be much that I can add to what she has said and to what has already been made known in Answers to Questions which she and other hon. Members have asked.
I will deal first with co-ordination within the Government. There is an official committee representing a very wide range of Departments. It is under the chairmanship of an official of the Atomic Energy Office, which Office, as the House will be aware, is the responsibility of the Prime Minister. The explanation of my answering this debate is that I have been acting, as it were, as a sort of Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister in this responsibility. Therefore, I think one can say that there is already a great deal of co-ordination in these matters. I accept from the start that the hon. Lady is right in saying that a tremendous num-

ber of different interests are involved, and we will certainly do all we can to ensure that the co-ordination between different Departments is up to date and as full as possible.
In dealing with the question of radioactivity, I find myself at a disadvantage in facing the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) who has a great deal of medical and scientific knowledge which I cannot claim. As I understand it, the human race has always been subject to a great deal of radiation from its natural environment, both from cosmic rays and from radiation from buildings and rocks, and there is even some internal radiation in the human body. In addition, we appreciate the radiation hazards which arise from X-rays, but more recently we have had the new problem which arises from the deliberate use by mankind of the releasing of the energy of the atom, both for warlike and peaceful purposes, to which the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green referred.
First, I should like to say a word or two about the peaceful uses of atomic energy. The hon. Lady referred to the possible danger from power stations. I agree that there is a theoretical danger that an accident in a power station may lead to the release of radioactive substances. That is one of the reasons why such stringent precautions are taken in the siting of power stations. As the hon. Lady mentioned the Windscale accident, perhaps I should emphasise once again that the design and construction of an atomic power station is very different from the Windscale establishment. For many technical reasons, which, as far as I recall, were set out in the White Paper, an incident of the kind which occurred at Windscale, leading to a substantial release of radioactivity, could not take place in any of the power stations being designed for the electricity authorities.
I agree that this is an important matter. It is worth emphasising the enormous safety precautions taken in the operation of many of the power stations being planned in the United Kingdom.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: A new instrument, the only one of its kind in this country, which is for peaceful atomic purposes, has recently been installed at Slough. It is under the Hawker-Siddeley combination. I am a


little surprised that it is not under the control of the Atomic Energy Authority itself, but could the Paymaster-General give an assurance that future instruments such as this one will not spread radioactivity? From one's examination of it, it would appear that that is the case, but it would be reassuring if an official Government statement could be made.

Mr. Maudling: I suspect that I would be out of order in discussing that matter, because there is a Bill, which is passing through the House at present, dealing with the licensing and safety precautions in respect of installations such as the one the hon. Member has in mind. I could not, without causing trouble, go into that point now. I can reassure the hon. Member that we have the problem in mind and that every precaution is being taken.
There is a special problem in connection with radioactive waste to which the hon. Lady referred and with which local authorities are very much concerned. As she herself said, the municipal corporations and other local authority associations are shortly to have a meeting with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to consider the possibility of a new code of legislation on radioactive waste. That will be a very important meeting. I should like to make it clear that when these consultations take place the whole question of local authority responsibility in the field of radioactivity dangers can come under review. Certainly nothing will be excluded. It is partly because of the prospect of this consultation in the fairly near future that the municipal organisations seem to be satisfied with the present situation.
Here, I should like to quote from the journal of the Association of Municipal Corporations of 27th February. In reply to an inquiry, the Association said:
Your authority may, therefore, feel, having regard to the extensive programme at present being undertaken by the Government, that the dangers from radioactivity are being fully explored on a national basis, and that no further action is necessary by individual authorities unless and until statutory duties are specifically placed upon local authorities.
I get the clear impression that in the light of that statement and in the light of the forthcoming consultations, local authorities as a whole would feel that the position is satisfactorily covered by the existing national monitoring arrangements.
Medical officers of health have a solemn statutory obligation in this matter and it is important that they should have access, as they have, to very copious literature on the subject. Moreover, as the hon. Lady said, there is a committee of the Atomic Energy Authority considering the whole question of further training facilities in the field of radiological health and safety, and when that committee's report is available I am sure it will be of great interest and value. I think that the Governmental organisation for dealing with this problem is sufficient, and I also think that the facilities available to local authorities are adequate to enable them to discharge the statutory responsibilities which fall on them and for which they rightly have such a very serious regard.
I should like to say something more about the system which exists on a national basis for monitoring radio activity. I do not think that in this matter the Central London area presents any large special technical problems. I agree with the hon. Lady that it presents special problems in that it is the greatest concentration of population in the United Kingdom. I think she is on a very good point there, but I am advised, at any rate, that the special technical problems which arise in certain areas do not really arise in Greater London.
I understand that the danger arising from radioactivity—we are thinking now mainly in terms of the tests of nuclear weapons—can take several forms. Here I must walk warily because if I put a false step I am sure that the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington will contradict me. I understand that dangers can arise from inhaling radioactive particules in the air or from penetrating radiation from particles on the ground or in suspense or from the consumption of water and food.
So far as inhaling radioactive particles is concerned, the state of the atmosphere which we breathe is regularly monitored by the Atomic Energy Authority at Harwell. I understand that the average level of radioactivity from nuclear explosions has been found to be less than 1 per cent. of that due to natural activity in the air. I think there is here a very wide margin of safety indeed. In fact, as the hon. Lady said, the London County Council conducts monitoring activities in the Greater London area, and so does the firm of Kodak Limited at Harrow.
As to the first result of these emissions into the air, there is a substantial programme on a national basis for monitoring the state of the atmosphere.

Mr. Niall MacDermot (Lewisham, North): Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these different monitoring tests show different results in different parts of the country or whether, by and large, they all show the same result?

Mr. Maudling: I understand, so far as the pollution of the atmosphere is concerned, that there is not very much difference. I think the differences arise more where rain has fallen on certain areas and where we get a different quantity of Strontium 90 deposited. That is my understanding.
The second source of possible concern is the radiation dose resulting from penetrating radiation from debris which has fallen on the ground or is in process of falling. Here, again, there is a regular monitoring system which leads one to the conclusion that the possible dose of radiation which may emerge from this fallen debris is naturally a very small fraction of what is likely to be received by people from normal background radiation.

Dr. Summerskill: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the whole point is the cumulative danger? There is no comfort in being told, as continually we are told from the Front Bench opposite, that only a small amount comes from each of these sources. It is the cumulative danger that we must beware of, and I should like to hear about that.

Mr. Maudling: The figures I have been given suggest that if we assume that nuclear weapon tests will continue at the present rate for an indefinite period, over a thirty-year period the radiation received from this source is likely to be between 0·02 per cent. and 0·04 per cent. of that received during the same period from natural radiation, which is a very tiny percentage indeed. It is almost infinitesimal.

Mr. Harold Davies (Leek): That is true, but would the Minister not agree that, in addition to the radiation, we have something that was not on earth until man split the atom, namely, strontium 90 and plutonium? The additional

strontium 90 has nothing to do with the natural conditions because that was not there before. This has now reached a pitch where deaths from leukaemia are 6 per cent. higher than they were in 1938 pretty well all over the world. This is something about which the House of Commons and the world should know. I do not want to monopolise the time available, but I hope that the Minister will listen to my right hon. Friend's suggestion. Whichever Government are in power, some Minister should be responsible for collating this information and should either be trained or train himself in the understanding of it.

Mr. Maudling: The effect of strontium 90 was my next point. I agree with the hon. Member that this is probably the most important part of the argument.
Strontium 90 can be ingested into the human system from drinking water or from foodstuffs including milk, milk being the most likely method by which strontium 90 can enter the human system. Here the monitoring system is clearly of very great importance. So far as drinking water is concerned, there is, as the hon. Lady said, a monitoring system operated by the Metropolitan Water Board and the London County Council in addition to the work carried out by the national authorities.
The work done by both these bodies has shown that the amount of strontium 90 that may come into the diet of human beings through drinking water is only a minute fraction of the normal intake, or total dietry intake, of strontium 90. So far as the problem of the intake of strontium 90 is concerned, the amount taken in through drinking water is infinitesimal and therefore not the most important factor. The most important factor is food, particularly milk, and to a rather less extent, fresh vegetables.
Milk is the commodity upon which the monitoring system proposal concentrates. Samples are regularly drawn from about 200 depots handling about 40 per cent. of the total milk produced in the country, including the milk coming into greater London.
We believe that this food sampling programme which we have in the country is more comprehensive than any similar system in the world. In addition, work is being done on imported foodstuffs to which the hon. Lady rightly referred.


I would like to inform the hon. Lady that this system of monitoring has recently been extended to include samples of imported cheese, eggs and tea.
The bulk of our supplies come from the Southern Hemisphere where the levels are likely to be lower. As the hon. Lady said, in the Northern Hemisphere one gets a higher degree of contamination than in the Southern Hemisphere. So far as food is concerned, there is a very widespread monitoring system, but it concentrates, in the first place, on milk because that is where there is the greatest danger.
I understand that the significance of strontium 90 is the amount present in human bones. Bone samples are collected over a wide area, including the London area, in association with the national monitoring system for radioactive strontium.
The hon. Lady said, I thought possibly a little over-boldly in her remarks, that the scientists have recently been proved wrong. I think she was referring to those reports which have appeared in the Press of the new American Report on radioactive fall-out of radiostrontium from the atmosphere. As the Prime Minister said today in answer to a Question, we are obtaining urgently copies of that report. I rather think it would be unwise, till we have seen them, to make any statement on them, but I would not accept her statement in this particular, that the scientists have been proved wrong. I think, with respect, that she was jumping the gun a little, though she may be right.

Dr. Summerskill: What about Euratom, which two weeks ago said again that the predictions had been wrong and that there was a much higher concentration than had been expected and, indeed, that we must exercise the greatest vigilance?

Mr. Maudling: I agree that we must exercise the greatest vigilance, and that is why we are anxious to get hold of those American reports. We shall examine them with very keen attention and with a sense of urgency.
When talking about Ministerial responsibility it is important to recognise that Ministerial responsibility in these matters rests with the Prime Minister, who acts as a Departmental Minister on atomic energy matters, and I think the fact that hon. and right hon. Members, who have a

special responsibility in all this, feel that that is right shows that they do recognise the importance of these matters.
I would now say a word or two about the results obtained from bone samples, because I think they give a considerable degree of reassurance. I understand that it is generally accepted that the maximum permissible level of strontium 90 for the bones of human beings is about 100 units. The highest level yet reported in the United Kingdom is 3·2 units and the average level in the most vulnerable age group, that is from birth to 5 years old, is only 1·2 units and shows signs of increasing only very slowly.
In London the level would be expected to be lower than the national level. This is borne out by the results of measurements. The highest level yet reported in the London area is 1·2 units. The average is 0·56 units. I am not saying that there is no danger here at all. Of course there is. I am not saying that this suggests that it is not a matter where close and continuous watch must be kept, but I am giving these figures because they seem to me the best evidence of the degree of danger at the present moment and what is likely to exist in the forseeable future. The figures show that we must avoid the danger of an exaggeration of what is implied in the effect on the human race in this country of radioactivity and of the fall-out of radio strontium. I give these figures because they are based on an analysis of practical solid objects and are likely to prove an accurate analysis.

Dr. Summerskill: As the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the question of bones, will he comment on the increase of leukaemia which is not denied by any medical authority?

Mr. Maudling: The figures I have given today are figures of the level of radiostrontium found in bone samples. I speak rather off the cuff, as I must in these matters, but I would think that if the increased level of strontium 90 in the bones is so very far below the danger level, it is unlikely to have given rise to any deleterious effects for the population. That would be the deduction which I would draw from these figures.

Mr. Harold Davies: This is an old argument.

Mr. Maudling: This subject for debate today on the Adjournment was only lately


put down and I am answering on the basis of information available today.
We have been drawn in this debate through a wide range of important matters, but the point originally raised by the hon. Lady was monitoring in the London area and the responsibility of the local authorities in this matter. If I may recapitulate on that, I would say that the general monitoring system in this country is second to none. It is conducted with great skill by our own scientists who are really outstanding in these matters. It is our belief that it is better that it should continue to be on a national basis because the problem is very complex, the degree of skill needed is high, the personnel available for it relatively few, and the instruments required are, I understand, of a highly complex character. Therefore we think it is right to continue this system of national monitoring, although the work done by the L.C.C., to which the hon. Lady referred, is clearly very valuable.
There is to be a conference between the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the local authorities on the important question of the disposal of radioactive waste, and in the course of that conference local authorities will be able to raise any problem they have in mind about the general question of the responsibility in the matter of radioactivity. I am conscious that I have not satisfied everyone in the House by my reply, and possibly the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington in particular.

Mr. Harold Davies: What about the radioactive material carried in the railway guard's van? I have seen that done myself.

Mr. Maudling: The question of radioactive substance dealt with by regulations issued by the Minister of Transport is one about which I have no responsibility and certainly I have no brief, but I should be glad to look into it and inform the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington. I hope that I can say without offence that regulations governing the transport of radioactive material are somewhat remote from the subject of the debate, though I do not suggest that they are irrelevant or out of order, for it would be improper for me so to do. We attach very great importance: as the right hon.

Lady rightly does, to this matter and the machinery we have both at Government and authority level for dealing with this problem is satisfactory.
I am sure that the right hon. Lady will continue to harry us on the subject, and that it will be good for us if she does so.

UNEMPLOYMENT, HULL

3.52 p.m.

Commander Harry Pursey: I want to raise the important problem of the serious unemployment position in Hull where, since the Tory Government came into power in 1951, the number of unemployed has doubled and unemployment now affects 10,000 men, women and children. I want to press for a Government inquiry into the resources of the city to increase its productive capacity and so absorb the thousands of unemployed there. I shall quote some official figures to give the general picture, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service will not improve the position or his case if he gives other figures in the course of his reply in an attempt to score a debating point. I wrote to the hon. Gentleman to inform him of some of the points which I intended to raise so as to give him an opportunity to prepare his reply.
In October, 1951 when the Tory Party took office, the number of unemployed in Hull was 3,226, according to an Answer to a Question of mine reported in HANSARD for 6th November, 1958. In January of this year, after seven years of "Forward with the Tory Party" the number was 6,602 or over double that of 1951. This is not an advance but a serious retreat for the citizens of Hull. Moreover, this is not the whole picture because unemployed dockers are not included in these figures. Last year there was serious unemployment on the docks. Another 1,000 men were unemployed or nearly a quarter of the number on the register.
A year ago, half the number of registered dockers in Hull were unemployed. Even last month, on 20th February, the number of dockers proving attendance or "dieting", as they say in dockland, was 898. The present policy of the Hull and Goole Dock Labour Board is to


allow the register to run down and at present there are about 20 dockers on temporary release. Throughout the city, overtime has largely fallen off and thousands more are under-employed. Allowing for the married men with wives and children, there are over 10,000 men, women and children reduced to the Conservative dole standard of life and denied the proper standard of living, food and accommodation, which, according to the Tory Party, is to be doubled in our lifetime. I would add a very serious question mark to that.
I admit frankly that this month's figure is down by 500. How long will this reduction continue under the present Government's restriction policy? Even now the number is nearer 6,000 than 5,000, and it is still over 4 per cent. and about twice the national average. My main point, however, is that the number should never have been allowed to double itself in our modern economic situation, where there is opportunity to prevent such a tragedy, because tragedy it is to those affected.
What are the causes of the largely increased number of unemployed in the country in general and in Hull in particular? Briefly, in an expanding world economy the Tory Government's economic policy of restriction has failed both at home and overseas. Hull is the eighth city, and until recently was the third port, in the United Kingdom. As a major port, the main employment depends on port traffic, exports and imports. Time will not permit me to give illustrations of the serious fall in both outward and inward traffic. Under the present Tory Government the picture of Hull dockland has been the forlorn one of empty berths and empty dry docks. So, in addition to the city's unemployed and the dockers, we have had serious unemployment among ship repairers, and traders who provide supplies for ships have been doing little or no business. Unless something drastic is done to rescue the city and port from this serious slump. Hull is likely to become the Tory 1959 Jarrow.
I will take three quick samples of the Ministry of Labour figures of unemployed by industries for this month. They are, transport and communication 780, building and contracting 605, engineering, shipbuilding and electrical goods 470, a total of 1,855. I drew the attention of

the hon. Gentleman to these figures in my letter. Why are these 1,855 men unemployed? Why has the number of unemployed in engineering, shipbuilding and electrical goods increased by 18 last month when there was a reduction of 500 elsewhere?
Another important point is that there were 130 boys and 34 girls unemployed on 5th March. School leavers are not getting career jobs, only blind alley ones, which should be available to elderly persons. This is sure to have an effect on juvenile delinquency. With the bulge of school leavers we shall have 107 leaving school this year for every 100 last year, and in 1962 it will be 130 throughout the country. What do the Government propose to do about the Hull school leavers?
Then there is the question of the older persons and the disabled. Are these unfortunate members of our modern society to be doomed to the Tory dole standard for life? We have a Government training centre and a Remploy factory but they are only working at reduced capacity. The Blind Workshops in Hull perform a good job in providing employment for the blind, but they have just lost a Ministry of Works contract for brushes for hospitals. The result is that the Treasury will gain by the reduced price on the one hand and lose on the other by paying out dole to the blind. It is disgraceful to take Government work away from the blind in Hull.
What are the Tory Government, what is the Minister of Labour, what is the Parliamentary Secretary doing for the unemployed in Hull—the older persons, the disabled, the school leavers and the blind? Practically nothing. This Government have spent millions of pounds on national developments and factories elsewhere but practically nothing in Hull.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office, speaking in Glasgow on 5th March, said:
Seventeen new projects have been approved in Scotland in the past year giving jobs for almost 3,500 people. Ten applications for loans and grants totalling £200,000 have been recommended in addition to £2 million offered to Scottish projects in recent months.
The only Government expenditure in Hull has been the dole. In the 12 months ending April, 1958, nearly £500,000 was paid out in unemployment benefit and National Assistance This year it is likely to be


£750,000 or more. In 1958 the national figure for unemployment benefit and National Assistance was double that for 1956.
In January this year the Government announced the inclusion of Hull, Filey, Bridlington—the hon. Gentleman's constituency—and Scarborough in the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958, scheme for financial aid for industrial development. The Hull Daily Mail came out with a front page banner headline:
State to help Hull jobless.
They were almost counting the new factories to be built by the Government and the thousands of men who were to be employed.
What has been the result? I am sorry to say that it has been nothing. On 16th March, in answer to a Question, I was informed that there had been only one firm and eligible application, and that was only under consideration. The mountain had laboured, but it had not even brought forth a mouse.
The position is crazy even from a Tory Government point of view. Hull, North is a marginal seat previously held by Labour. The loss of this marginal seat, and others, because of unemployment in Hull, especially on today's showing of the result of the Norfolk, South-West by-election, will cause the defeat of the Tory Government, and the Parliamentary Secretary will lose his job.
I want to make nine suggestions for improving the parlous position in Hull. First, the Government should forthwith stop their policy of restriction and decide on expansion in order to put more spending power in the pockets of the workers, particularly the underpaid workers and those forced on the dole.
Second, the Government should forthwith adopt a policy of expansion in foreign trade, both export and import, and again bring life to our stagnant ports. The obvious example is to increase East-West trade, particularly with Russia and Poland. If barter trade is necessary, Russia can provide timber and grain. Hull is the major port for the Baltic and can deal with all the sea traffic the Government can put there, particularly timber and grain.
Third, there should be a major project for Hull. The Government are spending

millions of pounds on big contracts in other parts of the country. Why should they not steer a major project to Hull? For example, why should there not be an oil refinery in Hull? We have jetties for tankers and large sites ready for development. Why concentrate oil at Southampton? Southampton will be just as vulnerable as Hull in another war.
Fourth, there should be sub-contracts for Hull. If the capacity of Hull firms is such that they cannot compete for large contracts, why should there not be subcontracts? Hull has a certain capacity, and there is overwork in other areas with unnecessary overtime and delayed deliveries. Why not spread such contracts by sub-contracting, with advantage to all? Light industries, in particular, should also be steered to Hull.
Fifth, the Admiralty should provide ship-repairing facilities for Hull; sixth, the city council should have approval to build factories to let and to develop a proper trading estate; seventh, there should be a Government Department for Hull. The Government policy is to decentralise Government Departments and there is a Pensions Department at Blackpool and an Insurance Department at Newcastle. Why should there not be a Government Department at Hull to absorb clerical workers and provide new careers?
Eighth, a Cabinet Minister should visit Hull. No Cabinet Minister connected with the problem of unemployment has visited Hull to deal with this serious situation. It is doubtful whether some of them know where Hull is. Most assume that it is out on a limb in the Sahara Desert of the East Riding of Yorkshire. The idea appears to be, "Hull is near Bridlington which is Dick Wood's constituency and it will all be all right on the day—election day." It will not be all right on that day.
Admittedly, we have had a visit from one of the Tory second XI, when we were visited by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who was in his place a few minutes ago, but who has now left us. He came last month, but he could not pull any rabbits out of the hat. He was something of an anticlimax after the great hopes, falsely built up, that Hull was to be included in the development of industries scheme. Why should not one of the Government's first


XI, a Cabinet Minister, visit us, as did a Minister of Labour under the Labour Government?
Ninth, there should be a Government inquiry. Nothing will ever be done sufficiently to improve the productive capacity of Hull and adequately to absorb its thousands of unemployed until there is a full-scale inquiry into the resources and lack of resources of the City of Hull. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary, for his own sake, for the sake of the East Riding and for the sake of his own constituency, as well as for the sake of Hull, to press among his Ministerial colleagues the need for a full-scale Government inquiry into why Hull is neglected and stagnant, and to find ways and means of increasing and using the full capacity of local resources and labour, in particular to provide a better life for the 10,000 men, women and children now being denied the proper standard of living to which they are entitled in this period when, if properly planned, there should be more than enough work for all.

4.7 p.m.

Captain M. Hewitson: I shall take not more than a few minutes to support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull, East (Commander Pursey) in his plea that some assistance should be given to our unemployed in Hull. I wish to suggest two or three things which could be done and which would give some form of immediate relief.
There is a barter agreement between the Soviet Union and this country under which we supply herrings to the Soviet Union and in return receive tinned salmon and tinned crab to the tune of £1 million a year. Our herring supply has a short-fall of approximately £500,000. We cannot supply the herrings, because we cannot catch them.
I suggest to the Minister responsible for the barter agreement that he should extend the agreement made last year, when we sold 6,500 tons of white fish fillets from our fishing ports to Russia. This year, no order of any description has been placed. There is an opportunity to reduce unemployment in the fishing industry in Hull by agreeing, under this year's agreement, to supply frozen white fish fillets to the Soviet Union.
Another aspect of the problem concerns the British Transport Commission, which is closing the Hull and Barnsley Railway. The Commission tells us that this is streamlining, and that it is being done to save £x per year on streamlining. The Commission is to put the transport of coal from mid-Yorkshire to the docks at Hull on to the main line services, and whereas now it takes approximately four hours' engine time to bring a coal train to the docks at Hull, on the new service, over the main lines, it will take about 12½ hours. That is the Commission's idea of economy.
When this economy takes place, a number of men will be thrown out of work. We would suggest that an effort should be made to use Hull, which has always been a medium for the export of coal, by the "most favoured nation" kind of treatment, to which it is due because of its position and its high number of unemployed, and that the Commission should also keep open the old Hull and Barnsley Railway, so that men will not be thrown out of work.
My third point concerns the Hull fish docks. At the end of the docks, we have slipways which take three trawlers, but these slipways were put in about 1860 and were designed for the trawlers of that day. Today, these slipways, which are owned by the Transport Commission, are absolutely useless for modern trawlers. We cannot refit modern trawlers on those slipways in Hull. We can deal with the obsolete ones, but not with the modern ones. If it is necessary to lift a boiler or move heavy machinery, the work has to go somewhere else. That work could be done in Hull, and if a start was made on building extensions to these three slipways it would mean immediate work for the unemployed in Hull.
My fourth point, again, is connected with the fishing industry, which is my particular interest. We have a rebuilding programme amounting to approximately £15½ million for the trawlers sailing out of Hull. The White Fish Authority, to which we pay extensive levies in Hull, does not subscribe anything at all to trawlers of above 140 ft., but we have nothing going out of the docks at Hull which is less than 140 ft. This means that we cannot have any subsidy at all from the White Fish Authority to help that building programme of new trawlers.
I say at once that the trawler owners of Hull have no desire to receive any subsidy from the White Fish Authority, but this is a job on which the Minister could step in and use his imagination in finding ways and means by which the trawler owners could have advances made to them at cheap rates of interest, so that they may scrap some of the obsolete trawlers and refit the modern ones which still sail out of the port.
These are simple suggestions which we are able to make after trying to find ways and means by which we could improve the present situation in Hull and find employment for the unfortunate people now out of work. I therefore hope that the Minister will take notice of some of the suggestions which have been made by my hon. Friend and myself, and will use every possible means at the Ministry's disposal to relieve our present problem. It is a terrific problem indeed, because our nearest means of employment is 50 or 60 miles away. We are an isolated community, and therefore, something must be found for the relief of our present unemployment situation.

4.14 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Richard Wood): I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, East (Commander Pursey) and his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull, West (Captain Hewitson) for having discussed the problem in which, as the hon. and gallant Member for Hull. East pointed out in his speech, they and I have a common interest. When the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, West was talking about Hull being isolated, I was entirely in agreement with him. In fact, my constituents who are looking for work are that much more isolated than are his. Therefore, I have been anxious to try to find a solution to this problem on many of the lines which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has suggested.
I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I have no wish to score party points, but it is profitable to consider the problem from the point of view not only of Hull but of Hessle, because there is a great deal of movement between the two places. Although I have no quarrel with the figures produced by the hon. and gallant Member, mine are based upon

the two employment exchanges taken together. They show much the same picture.
I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for having been kind enough to give me notice of the points that he would raise. At the beginning of his speech he said that unemployment, which, in October, 1951, was 3,226, or 2·3 per cent., had increased in January, 1959, to 6,602, or 4·5 per cent. I am glad to say that the figure for March, which is the latest figure available, shows that there has been a decrease to 5,817. That, based upon the old figure of the insured population—on which he was basing his percentages—is exactly 4 per cent. Again, I do not want to score any party point, but, in fact, a later figure for the insured population in Hull has become available, which brings the percentage of unemployed slightly below 4 per cent.
The hon. and gallant Member referred to unemployment among dock workers. The point that he made in connection with Hull is familiar to us all. There are always some dock workers for whom work is not available, but neither this Government nor the Labour Government have ever considered them as being unemployed in the same sense as the other workers whom we are discussing, mainly because certain arrangements are made for their general employment. and also because they are not normally available to take other work. The figures for unemployment among dock workers at the recent peak, at the end of last November, was 684, or 15 per cent. I am glad to say that the March figures are quite good. On 7th March there were only 47, which is just over 1 per cent., and on 14th March there were 212, or 4·7 per cent.
I have already told the House that there was a considerable decline in unemployment between January and March. The largest industry in which there was a decline was the building industry, where the fall was from over 1,000 to 623. There have also been reductions in the Hull and Hessle area in agriculture, shipbuilding and ship-repairing, sea transport and distribution, and all those are welcome.
The hon. and gallant Member also talked about the difficulty in relation to boys and girls, especially those leaving school. I am aware that the so-called bulge in Hull is rather larger than the


national average. I cannot check the hon. and gallant Member's figures, but I have no reason to doubt that his figures of 107 and 100, for school-leavers leaving this year and next year, respectively, are accurate. Last Christmas, in Hull nearly 1,000 left school, and in January 88 of those 1,000 were registered as unemployed. In February, 20 were so registered, and in March only five.
I am glad to say that during the three months of this year there has never been among the unemployed more than three of the boys or girls who left school last summer. Although the placing may have taken longer and the choice of employment has not this year been as wide as before, I think that the Youth Employment Service deserves to be congratulated, as I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree, on having got so many of these boys and girls into employment.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman made certain suggestions and asked questions about what the Government are doing. May I say, first, to the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, North that the suggestions which he made seemed to be sensible. Although they are not matters for which I am responsible, I will undertake to bring them to the attention of, I think, the four Government Departments concerned, so that they may be given careful consideration.
The hon. and gallant Member for Hull, East asked what the Government were doing and he will know that they have taken general measures in the direction he suggested, including the stimulation of purchasing power and the ending of the credit squeeze. We hope that that will have the effect of stimulating a greater volume of economic activity. He will be well aware, as I am, of the economic difficulties caused by a circumstance out of the control of any Government, the falling off of trade abroad, which is bound to have grave effects on this country, and particularly on a great port like Hull, which is so dependent on foreign trade, ship-repairing and ship-building, and so on. But in the last few weeks there have been signs of a recovery—I cannot put it higher than that.
Certainly, the figures which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour was able to announce, revealing a reduction in the number of unemployed, were encour-

aging. It is too early to make a careful analysis of how much extra economic activity that represents, but if there is an increase, I hope that Hull, with the rest of our great cities, may share in it. It would appear that Hull is sharing in that increase by the reduction in the figures beween January and March.
Obviously, the hon. and gallant Gentleman is most interested in the measures the Government have been taking to help difficult areas like Hull and the East Riding of Yorkshire where there is a great shortage of manufacturing industry. He will be aware that over the years, under the Labour Government as well as this Government, there have been a number of investigations into the problems of Hull which resulted in the conclusion that it is most essential to get new manufacturing industry on to the north bank of the Humber.
I understand that in 1948 the then Labour Government considered scheduling the whole area as a Development Area, but eventually they decided against it. Since 1948, and under both Governments, the Board of Trade has brought the claims of Hull to the attention of industrialists contemplating expansion, and in many respects those claims are good.
I understand that there are a number of easily developable industrial sites which, I hope, will come into use. The hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested that nothing had happened under the provision of D.A.T.A.C. These are early days for that because, as he knows, Hull was added to the list only in January. I understand there has been an application for assistance under the Distribution of Industry Acts and I hope that as time goes on industry will be steered to Hull.
As the hon. and gallant Gentleman realises, and as I think he said, neither my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who is sitting by me, nor any other person in this country, can pull rabbits out of a hat. The purpose of the Distribution of Industry Act was to reduce the difficulties of industrialists who are contemplating expanding their businesses into places where unemployment was high.
I understand that there has been quite a lot of development in Hull since 1945, although, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman made quite clear, not enough


development. There have not only been new firms coming into the area, but quite a number of sizeable factory buildings and expansions. In the thirteen years since the war between 3 million and 4 million square feet of factory space have actually been completed. The best measure of the success which the Government and private industry, and anyone else who has been co-operating, have had in providing jobs in Hull is presumably shown by the numbers at work, as against those who are unemployed. As I have said, and as the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, there had been an increase of unemployment up to March since 1951, but there has been a recent decrease. The figure of increase was about 2,600.
I am glad to say that the numbers working have increased a good deal quicker than that. Over the whole of Hull the insured population in 1952 was 140,100 and the number of those at work was 136,000. That represents an unemployment figure of just over 4,000. In mid-1958, the insured population had increased to 148,700, an increase of about 8,600, and the number at work had increased to 143,800, an increase of 7,800. There has been an increase of employment since then. The net increase in those at work betwen 1952 and 1958 is about 6,800.
That is an important fact. Although the increase in employment is not sufficient and there has been grave unemployment, it is a measure of what the Government and other bodies, and private industrial development in the Hull area, have been doing over that period. It is, therefore, not true to say that there has not been an increase, in particular for those who live in Hull.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman made suggestions, apart from those made by my hon. Friend, that the Government should adopt in trying to solve the problems of Hull. With many of those suggestions I am not in great disagreement. He suggested that we should try to expand purchasing power. Although

I have no knowledge of the situation, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will wait for ten days he may get good news in that direction. As to the expansion of foreign trade with Iron Curtain countries, he will have heard the statement by the Prime Minister that that is precisely my right hon. Friend's objective. If my right hon. Friend is successful, then Hull, like a good many other towns in the country, will benefit.
Other suggestions were made by the hon. and gallant Member. Some of them are not within my responsibility, but with many of them I am not in disagreement. He suggested that a Cabinet Minister should visit Hull. I do not know whether or not that would be possible. I hesitate to let the hon. and gallant Gentleman know, because it might come as a bit of an anti-climax to him, but I was intending to visit Hull myself. I am not suggesting that I am a Cabinet Minister; far from it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was suggesting a humbler job even than that which I have.
It might be a start if I went, and a Cabinet Minister could visit Hull later. I have been anxious for some time, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, to visit the city and have a general discussion about its employment problems. I was hoping to do so at the beginning of this month but could not; but I hope to be able to do so early in May.
I can, therefore, assure both hon. and gallant Members that we are not in the least complacent about this matter. We are very much concerned at the Ministry of Labour about any growth in unemployment as there has been over the last few years, but we are delighted at the reduction that there has been in the last two months. We are confident that that reduction will continue and we draw the attention of the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, East not only to the numbers of unemployed, but to the number of those at work, which has increased very considerably during the last seven years.

CONSUMER RESEARCH

4.30 p.m.

Miss Elaine Burton: I had hoped that some of the time left over today might have seeped through to us for this Adjournment debate, but that is not the case and I shall have to leave out some of the things I wanted to say.
Had I been fortunate enough to speak in last Friday's debate on the protection of consumers I would have found myself in the rôle of a prophet, as I wanted to say that the time had now been reached when we should take a further step forward to deal with the problem of the consumer. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade probably knows that I take the view that when the Consumer Advisory Council was set up by the British Standards Institution, at the end of 1954, it was a piece of window dressing by the Government, particularly because that Council was given no power whatever.
Since January, 1955, we have had the British Standards Institution wanting to make progress on consumer protection, but being greatly handicapped by lack of power. I cite, as I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary knows I am going to cite, the almost classic case of the children's shoe manufacturers. More than five years ago I first raised in this House the question of standards for children's shoes. Ever since we have been trying to get something done about it. The British Standards Institution, its women's committee and the Consumer Advisory Council all felt that we ought to be able to do something about it. A questionnaire was sent out recently by the Institution and more than one-third of the replies received stated that people were dissatisfied with children's shoes. That is after five years.
I have put down a Question to the Board of Trade for 7th April showing that we have made very slight progress, in that the shoe manufacturers, after five years, are now disposed to bow to public opinion and have decided that they might discuss a case for having a standard for certain components of children's shoes.
I appreciate the limitations of an Adjournment debate and do not intend to transgress by asking for legislation. This afternoon I put forward to the

Parliamentary Secretary five basic facts which I hope the committee that is in process of being established will consider. I have told the hon. Gentleman what those five facts are, so there will not be any reason for not giving a good answer about each of them. First, I ask that the committee will consider whether it is right that the main consumer organisation in the country—by that I mean the British Standards Institution as at present constituted—should continue without power to deal with manufacturers who refuse to co-operate for the wellbeing of the consumer. I venture the opinion that responsible manufacturers would feel that I am right in raising that point.
I feel that, whatever organisation is eventually set up, it should be an organisation having the power to deal with what I call the day-to-day problems of the shopper. I have four examples here, although we could all add to them. The first is the problem that housewives are growing heartily sick of the super, large, branded, giant, monster packets of detergents. The adjectives bear no relation at all to the contents of the packets. Indeed, the larger the word "monster" is written, very often the less the detergent there is inside.
Secondly, I think that we should have the weight contents of all goods on the outside of the packets. The third problem is that of the registration of certification marks and marks of quality and that, I hasten to add, does not require legislation. I asked a Question about it in the House some time ago and did not get much change in the Answer, but I asked another Question last week when I got a fraction of change. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary whether he did not agree that the number of certifications and marks of approval on goods had greatly increased over the past 12 months, and I asked him what proportion were approved by his Department and what check was made on those not approved to safeguard the interest of the consumers. His first response was not worth very much; he said that some were approved and some were not, some could be actionable under the Merchandise Marks Acts and some could not. Then I asked him whether he felt that he could not go a


little further, and I should like to quote his reply:
I agree that these seals of quality which are not certification trade marks are commonly issued without any indication of the tests which have been applied in granting them. The Board of Trade endorses the view that it would be in the interests of shoppers that the tests should be made known."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 19th March, 1959: Vol. 602, c. 604.]
I asked him, if that were the feeling of the Board of Trade, why they did not do something about it. There was no time to pursue the matter then and I hope that he will give me an answer this afternoon.
The fourth day-to-day point which I should like to raise concerns the duplication of consumer research. There is a great deal of duplication, of wasted time and of wasted money. In the first place, we have the grant-aided research organisations of D.S.I.R. The Parliamentary Secretary knows as well as I that these number some 45. In addition, the nationalised industries of gas, electricity and solid fuel are all doing consumer research work. The British Standards Institution is doing research work. I need not mention the Consumer Association which is a private organisation. All these are doing this work. I am convinced—and no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will tell me if I am wrong—that the results of these consumer researches are not made available to each of the bodies concerned, and so it is obvious there must be duplication. I suggest that this organisation which is eventually being set up, and this committee which is considering the setting up of such an organisation, should consider whether the research should be done by one organisation or, if not, how the research which is done should be made available to all.
The next basic fact which I want the committee to consider is the general question of advertisements. About three years ago I raised with the Board of Trade the question of toothpaste advertisements. With the help of the British Dental Association I put certain evidence to the President of the Board of Trade, and the opinion of his legal officers was that whether or not the British Dental Association and I were correct in saying that these advertisements were injurious, a case could not be won in court on them. The matter lapsed for about two years. About a year ago I returned to

the attack and asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he would consider amending the Merchandise Marks Acts so that the manufacturers of toothpastes might have to substantiate their claims when making advertisements, rather than leaving it to the Board of Trade to prove them wrong.
I got nowhere as a result of my attack, but since then we have had an interesting development. That is that the I.T.A., as the Parliamentary Secretary well knows, has decided that toothpaste advertisements which are considered by its advertising committee to be injurious to health shall not be permitted to appear on its screens.
I want to pay a great tribute to the advertising committee of the I.T.A.—I may not always be able to do so—and particularly to the representative of the British Dental Association on that committee. I should also like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is aware that the advertisement which has been banned by I.T.A. from its screens is exactly the same advertisement as that which I tried to get the President of the Board of Trade to take action on three years ago.
This was like other advertisements—one may or may not be aware of them—which do not state something but permit an inference to be drawn which is most injurious. In this case it was that if one used a certain toothpaste it did the work of preventing decay and it was not necessary to brush one's teeth so often.
The advertising committee of the I.T.A. has decided that any advertisements which toothpaste manufacturers and possibly others—I do not know—want to put on their screens must first be passed by the I.T.A.'s own advertising committee on which a representative of the British Dental Association sits. That is a great step forward and it was hailed as being a great step forward in all the organs of the Press, which gave it great publicity. I thought this very interesting, because the Press had been giving equal space to those advertisements for toothpaste. Therefore, I think it right that I should ask this committee to consider whether one leaves it to the good sense and the public spirit of the newspapers to refuse such advertisements in future because they are injurious to health or whether the Board of Trade, or whatever


ultimate council it recommends being set up, should have powers to deal with such advertisements.
The fourth basic point with which I want to deal concerns the standard of kite marks and what I call quality standards. Here I have to deal with statements of the Branded Textiles Group to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred last week. They say that the kite mark denomination of the British Standards Institution is something that will bring all goods down to the lowest common denominator, hence the necessity of relying on established brand names. Many of the goods of this group are excellent but it represents a very small percentage of the total output of textiles and related goods. By no means all textile goods are sold under brand names and by no means all brand names are worth very much. Certainly every one cannot afford them.
The standard of the kite mark is too low, as I have often said before, because of the restrictions placed upon the British Standards Institution by the Conservative Government, and it is too low because too many manufacturers have to agree on it.
I have in this House repeatedly put forward suggestions which were then scoffed at and which I gather now are not only possible but may in fact actually be done, and they are that we should have quality standards and that some standards should probably be graded. I was always told that was possible by the technical people and now we have the admission from the Parliamentary Secretary last Friday that that is something they would consider. This Committee has an important additional point to consider here. In view of the attitude of the Branded Textiles Group and its disparagement of the marks put out by the B.S.I., I do not believe that we shall make any real progress with industry, either on the adoption of certification mark schemes or on the level of quality to which they refer, unless we can get across to the ordinary members of the public the message put out by the kite marks. On the one hand, I think that the Minister should consider that we have a shopping public which is assailed by the advertising propaganda of I.T.A., representing many millions of expenditure a year on branded products. On the other hand, the B.S.I. has no means

of similar propaganda. I think the Committee should consider whether a bigger grant should be given to the B.S.I. to do this, or whether the B.B.C. should be expected to do it for nothing.
My fifth basic fact is that in 1948 I was in America and saw how Consumers' Union worked. One of my first speeches in this House in 1950 was on this subject, and a point I made was that I thought the Consumers' Union fell down because of its middle-class membership. In this country we have the Consumer Council of the B.S.I., with a membership of 51,000, and the Consumers' Association with a membership of amout 125,000. That is about 175,000 in all, but as some members belong to both bodies that figure is probably somewhat inflated.
The same problem arises here as it does in America. The membership is of the middle classes. The organisations have made practically no impression upon working-class people or upon the working-class market. That will always continue to be the case while the service remains one of subscription, with a journal included in the subscription. Each organisation is wondering how to overcome that, and I believe that it can be overcome only by an organisation being set up which would take in those already in existence.
I want to stress my belief that there is not the slightest use in merely adding another organisation to those we have at present. It should be an independent national body, and its finances should not come from subscriptions. I outlined the details here on 23rd May last, as reported in columns 1710–11 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. If we had the American system here I could ask HANSARD to include these in the report of today's debate but perhaps, as I have mentioned them, anyone interested will be good enough to look at the HANSARD concerned. I think that any such organisation should publish a journal, and suggest that this should be an amalgamation of Shoppers' Guide and the journal of the Consumers' Association.Which?
I do not envisage the setting up of a separate Ministry with branch offices throughout the country, but whatever organisation is set up—and I raised this with the President of the Board of Trade on 12th March last—its reports should be given on sound


radio and on television. I do not believe in compulsion but in an informed public opinion, and the only way to get that informed public opinion is by giving the information through radio and television. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to give me an answer to some of my questions.

4.47 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): First, I should like to congratulate the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) on scoring a "double" today; not only has she got a place in these Adjournment debates, but has also had a letter on the same subject published in The Times today.
Perhaps I may now say a few words about the proposed Departmental Committee on Consumer Protection, which I announced last Friday. As the hon. Lady herself recognises, a great many of her points are likely to come under its scrutiny.
Both the hon. Lady and I share the desire that the Committee should be effective. My only quarrel with the hon. Lady was that she seemed to be telling the Committee, before it met, just what its findings ought to be. Doubtless, however, some of her suggestions will be adopted. She suggested that a national body should be set up. That, of course, is rather looking to the future, and I do not think that I can go nearly so far as that in my remarks.
The Committee will be concerned with some—I will not say all—of the problems that the hon. Lady has raised, and it is because they are very difficult problems that they are being remitted to it. I have, therefore, to be very careful not to be too dogmatic now about the various issues.
As there has been some misunderstanding in the Press, I should like to make it plain that it is not proposed to include weights and measures in the Committee's terms of reference, since this field was covered by the Hodgson Committee. As the hon. Lady also knows, we are about to conduct a social survey to check against present-day conditions some of the Hodgson Committee's recommendations before we introduce the comprehensive new weights and measures Bill.
The object of the survey is to help us to be sure that the whole range of everyday commodities used in the house, not only foodstuffs but other items which are not covered by existing law, are covered. The object is to find out exactly what the consumer wants and what extra protection, if any, is required. It will, for example, cover such questions as whether the housewife prefers to buy cutlets of fish by weight or by the piece, what information she needs about weight in the new types of transparent food packs used in self-service stores, what information, if any, she would like to have on packets of detergents, and tins and bottles of polishes, and whether she requires the contents to be marked. When we have this information we can proceed more confidently than now towards statutory measures.
I should now like to come to what the hon. Lady calls the day-to-day points. One of the points she raised concerned the action which is to be taken if a body that is broadly representative of consumers is unable to agree with manufacturers on a standard, and the instance which she gave—I knew that she would give it because she courteously gave me notice of it—was the proposed new standard for children's shoes. If manufacturers either do not accept that there is a need for a standard or are unable to agree on its technical specification, I cannot see what will be gained by an outside body devising a standard when there is no prospect that manufacturers will avail themselves of it. This is a point in which the pamphlet issued by the hon. Lady's party, "The Future Labour Offers You", is curiously evasive. I alluded to this point in my speech last week, when announcing the formation of the Committee.
As the hon. Lady says, manufacturers are now considering the possibility of a standard for some components of children's shoes, and I have no doubt that she will watch the position and continue to harry them, as she harries me, and that, doubtless, they will take notice of what she says on this subject. After all, public opinion is a far more important means than legislation, and the hon. Lady does a considerable amount of good by focussing attention on this matter. Although I do not always agree with her suggestions, I appreciate the motives which inspire her to raise these problems.
Another point which the hon. Lady raised concerned package descriptions. She said that, like herself, housewives and many retailers dislike expressions such as "monster", "magnum", and "giant". Some people may dislike them However, from my own experience, I disagree with her entirely. Most housewives know what such descriptions are worth. However, it may be that this is a point worth investigation, although I do not think that it is very important. It is something to which the Committee can doubtless pay attention.
The question of duplication of consumer research is more important and I should like to give more consideration to it. At the end of her speech, the hon. Lady suggested that there should be amalgamation between the Consumer Advisory Council of the B.S.I. and the Consumers' Association Ltd., which is a voluntary body. It is suggested that these two organisations should be married. I have never believed in shotgun marriages, and this would be such a marriage, since neither party wants to marry the other. I would be averse to trying to wed them forcibly.

Miss Burton: I was thinking of magazines.

Mr. Rodgers: The magazines are the private property of the organisations. I cannot see how I can marry them if they do not want to be married.
Another point which the hon. Lady raised and which had escaped my attention concerned the amount of consumer research done by other Government organisations, such as the nationalised industries. The hon. Lady wondered whether their research findings are available to each other. I should like to look into that point further. I have not given much thought to it and I would not like to comment on it. I thank her, however, for raising it.
On the question of marrying a voluntary consumer body with a Government-aided body—it is not entirely a Government body—I disagree fundamentally with the hon. Lady because I believe in competition even in the sphere of research. I do not want to see monopolies of research. In fact, I should like to see other organisations set up to protect the consumer by voluntary effort. I do not have this great faith which the

hon. Lady possesses in legislation. It is certainly necessary to legislate against fraud and things like that, but I believe that an enlightened public opinion allied to competition and freedom of choice is a far greater protection to the housewife than any kind of legislation. This is the essential point to recognise, that Hex Majesty's present Government, at least, believe in competition and freedom of choice. We shall try to preserve that as the greatest of boons that we can confer on the public.
I should like to say a few words about quality standards. The hon. Lady asked what we could do about them and quoted the activities of advertisers of toothpastes, some of whose advertisements have appeared on the commercial television screen. It is for the owners of any medium, the Press, posters or television, to decide what sort of advertisements they will permit to use their medium. I.T.A. is reported—and I believe the hon. Lady is correct in this—as having taken action about some toothpaste advertisements appearing on the television screen and as a result of which these advertisements have either been withdrawn or modified.
The hon. Lady has from time to time suggested that we at the Board of Trade ought to prosecute these advertisers of toothpastes for, as she suggested, applying to their products false or misleading trade descriptions within the meaning of the Merchandise Marks Acts. We have considered this point carefully, and although the experts whom we have consulted in many instances deprecated the claims of some toothpaste advertisers, they were not prepared to give evidence on oath that these claims could be considered false or misleading. In those circumstances, there was no useful action open to the Board of Trade.
Here is another case where adequate protection can be taken by the voluntary bodies, by the Newspaper Proprietors' Association, by I.T.A. and the publishers of periodicals, and so forth, and we should support their endeavours to promote self-discipline in this field. If there are abuses, it is proper that the hon. Lady and other Members should ventilate them in public from time to time and focus public attention on them; then usually voluntary action follows and stops the abuse. It is not always necessary to have recourse to Government assistance in securing the objective which we are all seeking.
I recognise that in the few remarks that I have been able to make I have not dealt with one or two of the five specific day-to-day points which the hon. Lady raised, because some touch on legislation, like certification marks, and I would be out of order if I attempted to give an adequate answer to those points. Perhaps at some time we can discuss them privately, if the hon. Lady would like to do that.
I should like to thank the hon. Lady once again for her co-operation in this matter. I hope that she will continue her good work. I shall press on in an endeavour to get the Departmental Committee established as soon as possible and get its terms of reference agreed and published.
If it is not out of order, Mr. Speaker, should like to wish the hon. Lady a

happy Easter and extend the same to you, Sir, and to all other hon. Members.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you whether you have heard whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies is to make a statement about the inquiry on Nyasaland? If you have not had any such indication, may I protest against the House adjourning without that statement having been made?

Mr. Speaker: I have not received any notification at all of such a statement.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Five o'clock, till Tuesday, 7th April, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.